OVM deprecation

[DaanHoogland]

Description

This PR...

Fixes: #10787

actual removal will be in v22 or v23 ...

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)
• build/CI
• test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 16.75%. Comparing base (4662ffc) to head (2499972).
Report is 58 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #11196      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     16.60%   16.75%   +0.14%     
- Complexity    13927    13992      +65     
============================================
  Files          5730     5697      -33     
  Lines        508254   505573    -2681     
  Branches      61789    61568     -221     
============================================
+ Hits          84395    84689     +294     
+ Misses       414420   411415    -3005     
- Partials       9439     9469      +30     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.91% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unittests	17.67% <ø> (+0.17%)	⬆️

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.

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland 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 14176

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14190

[DaanHoogland]

@sureshanaparti @JoaoJandre, can you guys have a look please?

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[JoaoJandre]

@sureshanaparti @JoaoJandre, can you guys have a look please?

Will do, soon ;)

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13781)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 53727 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr11196-t13781-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 142 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[JoaoJandre]

@DaanHoogland I was looking through the plugin retirement process (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798) and it seems like we have ignored step 3 of the procedure:

3. After the discussion, a voting thread should be started to check if everybody in our community is on the same page; the voting window should be of 48 hours. If people are against, we keep discussing until we find a middle ground. Retirement is a very delicate process, so everybody should agree upon it.

Also, as for step two:

2. Create a discussion thread reporting the situation and trying to discuss a way not to retire the component. If we find people willing to work on it, is great; otherwise, the retirement process continues;

I know we had issue #10787 to discuss, but I believe that the procedure means that a discussion on the mailing lists must be had first.

I will not -1 this because of the discussion on the issue (although I hope future deprecations follow the exact procedure), but the voting thread is necessary.

Also, please remember steps 4 and 5 before merging this PR. Merging this PR is step 6 🫠

[DaanHoogland]

@DaanHoogland I was looking through the plugin retirement process (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798) and it seems like we have ignored step 3 of the procedure:

3. After the discussion, a voting thread should be started to check if everybody in our community is on the same page; the voting window should be of 48 hours. If people are against, we keep discussing until we find a middle ground. Retirement is a very delicate process, so everybody should agree upon it.

I thought we had lazy consensus already but cannot find it. I’ll start a vote...

Also, as for step two:

2. Create a discussion thread reporting the situation and trying to discuss a way not to retire the component. If we find people willing to work on it, is great; otherwise, the retirement process continues;

note that the issue is forwarded to the mailing list. I consider this in adherence to the procedure.

[rohityadavcloud]

LGTM - but why not remove the code too. Removing from build configs ensure these are not getting built & shipped in the next release. Removing codebase wouldn't be any different, anyone looking for source can see prior trees.

[rohityadavcloud]

@DaanHoogland can you also search and remove any references in UI codebase.

[DaanHoogland]

LGTM - but why not remove the code too. Removing from build configs ensure these are not getting built & shipped in the next release. Removing codebase wouldn't be any different, anyone looking for source can see prior trees.

see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68720798, this is just the deactivation and deprecation phase. The idea is to remove the code in 6 months after this si merged.

[DaanHoogland]

@DaanHoogland can you also search and remove any references in UI codebase.

Yes, I will do ui testing to see if this has unforeseen consequences.

[sureshanaparti]

clgtm

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13845)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 52815 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr11196-t13845-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 142 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[JoaoJandre]

@sureshanaparti @DaanHoogland please remember to:

1. Post the voting results on the mailing lists
2. Create an issue for the plugin removal
3. Publicize the date for the actual removal in the mailing lists