[IUO] Add IUO child STP for dual-stream - #108
Conversation
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds a new IUO Software Test Plan document for a Dual-Stream RHCOS 9.8 + RHCOS 10.2 cluster, covering scope, requirements review, testing goals/strategy, environment/entry criteria, two new CNV-85504 migration-metrics Tier 2 scenarios, and sign-off. ChangesDual-Stream Cluster IUO STP Documentation
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels: Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Clean rebase detected — no code changes compared to previous head ( |
|
Report bugs in Issues Welcome! 🎉This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features: 🔄 Automatic Actions
📋 Available CommandsPR Status Management
Review & Approval
Testing & Validation
Cherry-pick Operations
Label Management
✅ Merge RequirementsThis PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:
📊 Review ProcessApprovers and ReviewersApprovers:
Reviewers:
Available Labels
AI Features
💡 Tips
For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Around line 199-207: The Test Environment subsection in iuo.md is missing
explicit fields required by STP Section II.3; update the IUO-specific Test
Environment block to explicitly list OCP/OpenShift versions (e.g., OCP version
and OpenShift Virtualization version), storage class, and platform (or mark N/A
where not applicable). Locate the "Cluster Topology" and "Special
Configurations" entries in iuo.md and add a "Test Environment" subsection under
them containing explicit keys: OCP Version, OpenShift Virtualization Version,
Storage Class, Platform, and any platform-specific notes so all fields are
filled or set to N/A per the coding guidelines.
- Around line 56-64: The NFR section (I.1 "Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)")
is missing explicit coverage for Observability and Documentation; update the NFR
matrix under that heading to explicitly list Observability and Documentation (or
state explicit inheritance from the parent STP per category), ensuring the
section includes bullets for Monitoring, Observability, UI, Documentation,
Performance, Security, and Scalability so the matrix is complete and auditable
(edit the "Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)" block and reference I.1).
- Around line 262-263: The Test Scenario in Section III currently reads like a
regression execution plan ("Run all existing IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests...");
update that line to describe the specific IUO behavior being validated on RHCOS
10.2 (e.g., "Validate IUO installation and basic cluster operations on RHCOS
10.2 nodes, including installer compatibility, node provisioning, and
CI-critical workload scheduling/boot behavior"), and move any mention of running
full regression suites back to Section II.2 (Test Strategy) instead; locate and
edit the bullet starting "*Test Scenario:*" in the Section III content to
reflect the focused feature validation rather than regression-suite execution.
- Line 67: The document contains unresolved placeholders "[Name/Date]" and an
insufficient limitation statement; replace every "[Name/Date]" placeholder with
the actual reviewer name and date, and change the limitation line from "None —
reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this
release." to the required reviewed-with format e.g. "None — reviewed and
confirmed with <Reviewer Name>/<YYYY-MM-DD>" and add the explicit
evidence/sign-off metadata block (reviewer, role, date, and short confirmation
statement) where other STPs include it; ensure the same fixes are applied to the
other occurrences referenced (the other two instances of the placeholder).
- Around line 23-27: Rewrite the "Feature Overview" paragraph (the one beginning
"This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support...") to
be user-outcome focused: remove internal implementation words like "operators",
"must-gather", and "metric plumbing" and instead state what cluster admins and
VM operators can verify (e.g., that VMs and CNV functionality operate on RHCOS
10.2, golden images are available and bootable, node placement policies are
honored in mixed-version clusters, observability shows expected VM and migration
metrics, and cross-version live migrations succeed and report accurate metrics).
Keep detailed implementation and collection mechanisms (must-gather internals,
plumbing details) for the test details section.
- Around line 39-43: Replace internal component/CRD names (HCO, SSP,
DataImportCrons) in the user-facing acceptance and goal statements with
observable behavior descriptions: e.g., change "CNV operators (HCO, SSP) deploy
and report ready" to "cluster virtualization components deploy and report ready
on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes", and replace "Golden images (boot sources via
DataImportCrons) are available" with "prebuilt VM boot images are available and
functional on RHCOS 10.2"; keep the original internal names only in
implementation notes. Also update the other occurrences referenced (the same
user-facing sections around the other mentions) to follow this pattern and
ensure no API/CRD/internal component names appear in scope or acceptance text.
- Around line 63-64: The UI NFR justification "UI: N/A — no IUO-specific UI
changes" is insufficient; replace that line in iuo.md with a PM/UX-backed
rationale or explicit test-scope justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and
confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted; UI/Usability testing waived with PM
sign-off: <name/date>" or a short customer-value rationale), and make the same
replacement for the similar occurrence around lines 170-172 so both instances
reference PM/UX approval or provide a concrete usability rationale explaining
why UI testing is not required.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e0e16967-68b8-48b5-ac75-bc5ca0bfb353
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Ohad <orevah@redhat.com>
f22dd08 to
13d89e3
Compare
openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-2
added
needs-rebase
and removed
changes-requested-coderabbitai[bot]
labels
|
Clean rebase detected — no code changes compared to previous head ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (6)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md (6)
138-138:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL: Replace placeholder with actual sign-off.
The Test Limitations item has an unresolved
[Name/Date]placeholder. Per STP governance, all sign-offs must be explicit before approval.As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🔧 Required fix
Replace
[Name/Date]with actual reviewer name and date, e.g.,Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 138, Replace the placeholder sign-off in the Test Limitations line that currently reads "*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit reviewer name and date (e.g., "Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX"), ensuring the Test Limitations section contains a concrete sign-off instead of the unresolved placeholder.
172-172:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Usability Testing justification requires PM/UX sign-off.
Same issue as the UI NFR section: the justification lacks PM/UX confirmation. If UI/Usability testing is truly not needed for IUO on dual-stream, provide PM/UX sign-off or customer-value rationale.
As per coding guidelines: "STP UI NFR: 'no UI changes introduced' does not justify dismissing UI testing. If UI testing is not needed, reasoning must come from PM/UX on customer value, not from implementation absence."
🔧 Proposed fix
- - *Details:* N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO; existing console functionality is unchanged. + - *Details:* N/A — PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted by dual-stream RHCOS support; existing console functionality unchanged (*Sign-off:* [PM/UX Name/Date]).🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 172, Update the IUO justification line that currently states "Details: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys..." by adding an explicit PM/UX sign-off or a customer-value rationale from PM/UX; specifically, amend the IUO section (the "IUO" heading and the sentence referencing "no UI changes introduced") to include either a named PM/UX approver and date or a concise customer-value statement from PM/UX explaining why UI/usability testing is unnecessary for dual-stream RHCOS, so the STP UI NFR requirement is satisfied.
132-132:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL: Replace placeholder with actual PM/Lead sign-off.
The Out of Scope item has an unresolved
[Name/Date]placeholder. Per STP governance, all sign-offs must be explicit before approval.As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🔧 Required fix
Replace
[Name/Date]with actual PM or lead name and date, e.g.,Martin Tessun / 2026-05-XX.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 132, Replace the Out of Scope placeholder "*PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit PM or lead sign-off including full name and an ISO-style date (e.g., "Martin Tessun / 2026-05-21"); update the text where the placeholder appears so the STP contains a concrete sign-off and date instead of "[Name/Date]".
68-68:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Known Limitations statement missing required name/date sign-off format.
The "None" statement must include reviewer name and date: "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]".
As per coding guidelines: "STP Section I.2 Known Limitations... If no limitations exist, state 'None — reviewed and confirmed with [Name/Date]'."
🔧 Proposed fix
-None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release. +None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 68, Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry in iuo.md so the "None" statement follows the required sign-off format; replace the current line "None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release." with "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]" using the actual reviewer name and ISO date to satisfy the Known Limitations sign-off requirement.
63-64:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: UI NFR justification requires PM/UX sign-off, not implementation-absence reasoning.
The UI NFR states "no new user journeys or UI elements" but lacks PM/UX confirmation. Per guidelines, "no UI changes" is insufficient—you must provide PM/UX backing or customer-value rationale explaining why UI testing is not needed.
As per coding guidelines: "STP UI NFR: 'no UI changes introduced' does not justify dismissing UI testing. If UI testing is not needed, reasoning must come from PM/UX on customer value, not from implementation absence."
🔧 Proposed fix
- - UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO; existing console functionality is unchanged + - UI: N/A — PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted by dual-stream RHCOS support; existing console functionality unchanged (*Sign-off:* [PM/UX Name/Date])🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 63 - 64, The "UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO" line in iuo.md lacks PM/UX sign-off; update the UI NFR by obtaining explicit PM/UX approval or a customer-value rationale and record it inline: replace or append to the existing UI NFR sentence with a short statement that includes the PM/UX approver's name (or role), date, and brief justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no UI impact for customers, signed off by <name/role> on <date>"), and do the same for the Documentation NFR if applicable so reviewers can verify the validation without assuming implementation absence.
23-27: 🧹 Nitpick | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winMEDIUM: Reframe Feature Overview from test-scope to feature capability.
The overview paragraph uses test-scope language ("validating that...") rather than describing what the feature enables. For a child STP, the overview should still describe user-facing capabilities within the SIG's scope, not test objectives.
As per coding guidelines: "Feature Overview in STPs must... describe what the feature does from the user's perspective... contain no implementation details."
♻️ Proposed fix
-This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support: validating that -OpenShift Virtualization deploys and functions correctly on RHCOS 10.2, golden images are available and bootable, diagnostic data collection works on RHCOS 10.2 nodes, -node placement policies are honored in mixed-version clusters, observability metrics work -as expected, and migration metrics are accurately reported during cross-version live migration. +This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support. OpenShift Virtualization +deploys and operates on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes, golden images are available for VM creation, +diagnostic data collection captures complete information from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, node placement +policies control VM scheduling on mixed-version clusters, and migration metrics accurately report +cross-version live migration performance.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 23 - 27, The overview paragraph in iuo.md is written as a test objective rather than a user-facing feature description; rewrite the first paragraph to describe the feature capability (what dual-stream RHCOS support enables for users of OpenShift Virtualization) without implementation or test language, e.g., state that dual-stream support allows running OpenShift Virtualization workloads across RHCOS 9 and 10 nodes with validated bootable golden images, consistent node placement, functioning diagnostics, and accurate cross-version migration metrics; update the paragraph text in the file's overview section accordingly to remove phrases like "validating that" or "diagnostic data collection works" and replace them with capability-focused statements.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Around line 234-261: The Risks section currently lists Test Coverage, Test
Environment, and Resource Constraints; add the missing three standard
categories—Timeline/Schedule, Untestable Aspects, and Dependencies—directly
after the Resource Constraints block: for Timeline/Schedule either state "No
timeline risks identified for TP phase; GA automation timeline tracked
separately." or describe any schedule risk and mitigation; for Untestable
Aspects either state "All IUO requirements for dual-stream are testable via
existing test frameworks and tooling." or list what cannot be tested and why
plus mitigation; for Dependencies reference the existing Test Environment
dependency on QE DevOps dual-stream cluster tooling and list any other external
dependencies or state "No other external dependencies identified." Ensure the
new headings match the style of the existing items (bold heading and bullet list
with Risk/Mitigation/Notes) so reviewers can locate them alongside Test
Coverage, Test Environment, and Resource Constraints.
- Line 19: Update the "Golden images" terminology line to remove internal
implementation references (SSP operator, DataImportCrons) and instead describe
the user-facing concept; locate the line containing the "Golden images:"
definition and replace the current text with a user-centric phrase such as
"Pre-configured VM boot sources that provide ready-to-use operating system
images for creating VMs" so the STP Document Conventions only define
feature-specific, user-facing terms.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Line 138: Replace the placeholder sign-off in the Test Limitations line that
currently reads "*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit reviewer name and
date (e.g., "Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX"), ensuring the Test Limitations section
contains a concrete sign-off instead of the unresolved placeholder.
- Line 172: Update the IUO justification line that currently states "Details:
N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys..." by adding an
explicit PM/UX sign-off or a customer-value rationale from PM/UX; specifically,
amend the IUO section (the "IUO" heading and the sentence referencing "no UI
changes introduced") to include either a named PM/UX approver and date or a
concise customer-value statement from PM/UX explaining why UI/usability testing
is unnecessary for dual-stream RHCOS, so the STP UI NFR requirement is
satisfied.
- Line 132: Replace the Out of Scope placeholder "*PM/Lead Agreement:*
[Name/Date]" with an explicit PM or lead sign-off including full name and an
ISO-style date (e.g., "Martin Tessun / 2026-05-21"); update the text where the
placeholder appears so the STP contains a concrete sign-off and date instead of
"[Name/Date]".
- Line 68: Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry in iuo.md so the
"None" statement follows the required sign-off format; replace the current line
"None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply
for this release." with "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer
Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]" using the actual reviewer name and ISO date to satisfy the
Known Limitations sign-off requirement.
- Around line 63-64: The "UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new
user journeys or UI elements for IUO" line in iuo.md lacks PM/UX sign-off;
update the UI NFR by obtaining explicit PM/UX approval or a customer-value
rationale and record it inline: replace or append to the existing UI NFR
sentence with a short statement that includes the PM/UX approver's name (or
role), date, and brief justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no UI
impact for customers, signed off by <name/role> on <date>"), and do the same for
the Documentation NFR if applicable so reviewers can verify the validation
without assuming implementation absence.
- Around line 23-27: The overview paragraph in iuo.md is written as a test
objective rather than a user-facing feature description; rewrite the first
paragraph to describe the feature capability (what dual-stream RHCOS support
enables for users of OpenShift Virtualization) without implementation or test
language, e.g., state that dual-stream support allows running OpenShift
Virtualization workloads across RHCOS 9 and 10 nodes with validated bootable
golden images, consistent node placement, functioning diagnostics, and accurate
cross-version migration metrics; update the paragraph text in the file's
overview section accordingly to remove phrases like "validating that" or
"diagnostic data collection works" and replace them with capability-focused
statements.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: f9166f21-0d57-4eab-9d35-efc636fbdbea
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
f244ef3 to
fedbad1
Compare
9893b52 to
18f6d70
Compare
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
|
/lgtm |
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
|
/retest tox |
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
|
/lgtm |
rnetser
left a comment
rnetser
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
Found 8 issue(s) in this PR:
💡 Suggestions (8)
| File | Line | Issue |
|---|---|---|
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
43 | **[CRITICAL] Acceptance criterion describes a QE activity, not a user-observable |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
98 | **[CRITICAL] P1 testing goal for node placement has no matching scenario in Sect |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
38 | **[CRITICAL] Must-gather requirement has no Testing Goal and no Section III scen |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
236 | [CRITICAL] Approvers list is missing a Dev Lead |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
204 | **[WARNING] Entry criteria vs. Dependencies — are dual-stream clusters available |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
96 | **[WARNING] P0 testing goal is regression suite execution, not a user-observable |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
46 | [WARNING] Testability statement is inconsistent with the rest of the STP |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
14 | **[WARNING] Document Conventions duplicates terms already defined in the parent |
Review generated by pi
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| - QE Architect: Ruth Netser (@rnetser) | ||
| - sig-iuo representatives: @orenc1 @hmeir @rlobillo | ||
| - sig-virt representative: Akriti Gupta (parent STP owner) | ||
| * **Approvers:** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[CRITICAL] Approvers list is missing a Dev Lead
The parent STP lists "Principal Developer: Luboslav Pivarc @xpivarc" and the network child lists "Principal Developer: Edward Haas @EdDev" — but the IUO child only has QE Architect, sig-iuo Lead, and PM.
Please add the IUO or feature Dev Lead as an approver with name and GitHub handle.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
|
mtessun can not be added as reviewer. Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.: 422 {"message": "Reviews may only be requested from collaborators. One or more of the users or teams you specified is not a collaborator of the RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs repository.", "documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/review-requests#request-reviewers-for-a-pull-request", "status": "422"} |
rnetser
left a comment
rnetser
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
Found 6 issue(s) in this PR:
💡 Suggestions (6)
| File | Line | Issue |
|---|---|---|
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
230 | This is still unresolved from my previous review — please add a Dev Lead as an a |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
213 | Migration metrics scenarios say "reported correctly" — could you define measurab |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
139 | Monitoring details say OpenShift Virtualization metrics on RHCOS 10.2 nodes must |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
52 | Scalability NFR says "no new scale requirements" but P1 testing depends on cross |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
48 | Nit: "CNV" is used in several user-facing sections (lines 48, 63, 139, 172). Con |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
1 | No linked GitHub issue for this PR. Consider linking a tracking issue or noting |
Review generated by pi
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| - QE Architect: Ruth Netser (@rnetser) | ||
| - sig-iuo representatives: @orenc1 @hmeir @rlobillo | ||
| - sig-virt representative: Akriti Gupta (parent STP owner) | ||
| * **Approvers:** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is still unresolved from my previous review — please add a Dev Lead as an approver with name and GitHub handle (e.g., Luboslav Pivarc @xpivarc or the IUO-specific dev lead).
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| are required for migration metrics validation on dual-stream clusters: | ||
|
|
||
| - **[CNV-85504]** — As a VM operator, I want migration metrics to be reported accurately when migrating from an RHCOS 9.8 node to an RHCOS 10.2 node. | ||
| - *Test Scenario:* [Tier 2] Live migrate a VM from an RHCOS 9.8 node to an RHCOS 10.2 node and verify that migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported correctly. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Migration metrics scenarios say "reported correctly" — could you define measurable pass criteria? For example: duration > 0 and consistent with observed migration time; data processed > 0; bandwidth non-zero during active transfer. Same applies to line 217.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| - [ ] **Usability Testing** | ||
| - *Details:* N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO; existing console functionality is unchanged. | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] **Monitoring** — Verify CNV metrics on RHCOS 10.2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Monitoring details say OpenShift Virtualization metrics on RHCOS 10.2 nodes must be verified, but Testing Goals and Section III only cover migration metrics. Either narrow the Monitoring claim to match the actual goal/scenario scope, or add a goal + scenario for baseline metrics verification on RHCOS 10.2.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| - *NFRs not covered and why:* | ||
| - Performance: N/A — no new IUO-specific performance requirements; covered by parent STP | ||
| - Security: N/A — no new auth or RBAC changes; FIPS requirement covered by parent STP | ||
| - Scalability: N/A — no new scale requirements for IUO components |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Scalability NFR says "no new scale requirements" but P1 testing depends on cross-version live migration which has existing cluster-level parallelism limits (acknowledged in the parent STP). Please add: "existing cluster-level live migration parallelism limits apply (see parent STP)."
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
|
|
||
| - [x] **Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)** | ||
| - *SIG-specific NFRs:* | ||
| - Monitoring: CNV metrics (including migration metrics) must report correctly on RHCOS 10.2 nodes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: "CNV" is used in several user-facing sections (lines 48, 63, 139, 172). Consider using "OpenShift Virtualization" for consistency with the rest of the STP.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ | |||
| # Openshift-virtualization-tests Test plan | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No linked GitHub issue for this PR. Consider linking a tracking issue or noting Jira-only tracking (e.g., CNV-85504) in the PR description.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
rnetser
left a comment
rnetser
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
Found 3 issue(s) in this PR:
💡 Suggestions (3)
| File | Line | Issue |
|---|---|---|
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
93 | [CRITICAL] P0 Testing Goal has no matching Section III scenario |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
228 | Reviewer list uses bare GitHub handles without full names. Each reviewer should |
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md |
232 | Approver entry lacks a display name. Approvers require role, name, and GitHub ha |
Review generated by pi
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
|
|
||
| **Testing Goals** | ||
|
|
||
| - **[P0]** OpenShift Virtualization components deploy, report ready, and function correctly on RHCOS 10.2-only and dual-stream clusters. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[CRITICAL] P0 Testing Goal has no matching Section III scenario
The P0 goal ("OpenShift Virtualization components deploy, report ready, and function correctly on RHCOS 10.2-only and dual-stream clusters") has no corresponding test scenario in Section III. Section III only contains P1 migration-metrics scenarios.
Per AGENTS.md: "Every Testing Goal from Section II.1 has a matching scenario."
Please either:
- Add a Tier 1/2 scenario for the P0 goal (e.g., "Verify OpenShift Virtualization operators deploy and report ready on RHCOS 10.2-only and dual-stream clusters, and a VM can be created and started successfully"), or
- Remove the P0 Testing Goal and keep deployment/readiness coverage exclusively under II.2 Regression Testing — regression tests are not listed in Section III.
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
|
|
||
| * **Reviewers:** | ||
| - QE Architect: Ruth Netser (@rnetser) | ||
| - sig-iuo representatives: @orenc1 @hmeir @rlobillo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewer list uses bare GitHub handles without full names. Each reviewer should include role, name, and handle.
For example:
| - sig-iuo representatives: @orenc1 @hmeir @rlobillo | |
| - sig-iuo representatives: Oren Cohen (@orenc1), Hila Meir (@hmeir), Roberto Lobillo (@rlobillo) | |
| - sig-virt representative: Akriti Gupta (@akri3i) (parent STP owner) |
(Please verify the correct full names.)
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
| - sig-virt representative: Akriti Gupta (parent STP owner) | ||
| * **Approvers:** | ||
| - QE Architect: Ruth Netser (@rnetser) | ||
| - sig-iuo Lead: @hmeir |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approver entry lacks a display name. Approvers require role, name, and GitHub handle.
| - sig-iuo Lead: @hmeir | |
| - sig-iuo Lead: Hila Meir (@hmeir) |
(Please verify the correct full name.)
Assisted-by: PI (claude-opus-4-6-1m)
11 participants
STP Metadata
VEP issue: no VEP for this feature
What this PR does
STP for automated tests [observability + iuo] for a dual-stream cluster (nodes RHCOS9 and RHCOS10)
Special notes for your reviewer
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes