Consider secondary storage selectors during cold volume migration

[winterhazel]

Description

The secondary storage selectors allow operators to specify, for instance, that volumes should go to a specific secondary storage A. Thus, when uploading a volume, it will always be downloaded to secondary storage A.

The cold volume migration moves volumes to a secondary storage before moving them to the destination primary storage. This process does not consider the secondary storage selectors. However, some companies want to dedicate specific secondary storages for cold migration.

To address this, this PR makes the cold volume migration process consider the secondary storage selectors.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

How Has This Been Tested?

1. Without any secondary storage selector, I began the cold migration of a volume. I validated that the most free secondary storage was used for migration.

2. I created a secondary storage selector directing volumes to a specific secondary storage, and began the cold migration of another volume. I validated that the specified secondary storage was used for the migration.

[winterhazel]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 61.53846% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 16.14%. Comparing base (823080c) to head (7071461).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...tack/storage/motion/AncientDataMotionStrategy.java	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.20   #10957      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     16.14%   16.14%   -0.01%     
- Complexity    13253    13255       +2     
============================================
  Files          5656     5656              
  Lines        497893   497897       +4     
  Branches      60374    60375       +1     
============================================
- Hits          80405    80401       -4     
- Misses       408529   408536       +7     
- Partials       8959     8960       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests	16.99% <61.53%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 13604

[weizhouapache]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✔️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 14956

[weizhouapache]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14969