Allow deploy of VRs on dedicated resources

[GaOrtiga]

Description

Currently, it is not possible to deploy VRs on dedicated resources, even if they are dedicated to the domain in which the VR will be created.

A new global configuration allowRoutersOnDedicatedResources has been created to allow VRs to be deployed on hosts, clusters, pods and zones that are dedicated to their respective domains.

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

How Has This Been Tested?

With the configuration marked as true:

• I dedicated resources to the domain in which the VRs would be deployd and verified that the deploy worked normally.
• I dedicated resources to an account in that domain and verified that I could not deploy VRs on these resources.
• I dedicated resources to a different domain and verified that I could not deploy VRs on these resources.

I marked the configuration as false and verified that I could not deploy VRs on any of the dedicated resources.

[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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 3.52%. Comparing base (3166e64) to head (2bc25d1).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (3166e64) and HEAD (2bc25d1). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (3166e64)	HEAD (2bc25d1)
unittests	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #9531       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     18.01%   3.52%   -14.50%     
============================================
  Files          6029     464     -5565     
  Lines        542160   40137   -502023     
  Branches      66451    7555    -58896     
============================================
- Hits          97682    1415    -96267     
+ Misses       433461   38534   -394927     
+ Partials      11017     188    -10829     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.52% <ø> (ø)
unittests	?

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 12358

[nicoschmdt]

Hey @DaanHoogland, could we run the CI on this PR?

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

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

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-12421)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 58187 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9531-t12421-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 139 look OK, 2 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_11_isolated_network_with_dynamic_routed_mode	Error	2.29	test_ipv4_routing.py
test_12_vpc_and_tier_with_dynamic_routed_mode	Error	1.41	test_ipv4_routing.py
test_12_vpc_and_tier_with_dynamic_routed_mode	Error	1.41	test_ipv4_routing.py
test_12_start_vm_multiple_volumes_allocated	Error	20.01	test_vm_life_cycle.py

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[nicoschmdt]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@nicoschmdt 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 13280

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[DaanHoogland]

@nicoschmdt can you look at the conflicts again?

[rajujith]

@GaOrtiga Since this is for the 4.22.1 release, could you retarget the PR to the 4.22 branch?

[GaOrtiga]

@GaOrtiga Since this is for the 4.22.1 release, could you retarget the PR to the 4.22 branch?

Hi, @rajujith, when testing this I had some ideas of possible improvements, which should be added to this PR, however, I have other obligations which take precedence over this PR, so I will leave it on draft until I can work on it again. When I'm back to working on it, I'll change it to the correct branch.

Thank you.

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 17561