Refactor code to choose aggregate, network interface and creating storage volume; Also, the corresponding UT changes by sandeeplocharla · Pull Request #89 · NetApp/cloudstack

sandeeplocharla · 2026-08-10T03:01:32Z

Description

This PR has changes to refactor choosing an aggregate and its corresponding network interface and also creation of storage volume. Also, with this, volume creation would be done at the end, avoiding volume creation cleanup if in case there's a chance of failure during aggregate or network interface selection.

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

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

=================================================================
LATEST:

[iSCSI]

[NFS3]

=================================================================

ChoosingAggregateRefactorLogs_iSCSi.rtf

choosingAggregateRefactorLogs_NFS3.rtf

Choosing LIFs and aggregates might need further enhancement and a backlog story has been created for it https://netapp.atlassian.net/browse/CSTACKEX-343

Copilot

Pull request overview

Refactors the ONTAP primary storage initialization flow to explicitly select an aggregate (and a node-affine data LIF) before creating the backing FlexVol, so volume creation happens last and can avoid cleanup work if earlier selection steps fail.

Changes:

Split aggregate selection into a dedicated chooseAggregate(size) method and pass the chosen aggregate into volume creation.
Update data LIF selection to require the chosen aggregate (for deterministic node affinity) and move LIF selection before volume creation in the datastore lifecycle.
Add stricter validation around aggregate/node presence for LIF affinity.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java	Introduces explicit aggregate selection and requires aggregate input for LIF selection and volume creation.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java	Reorders initialization to choose aggregate + LIF first, then create the FlexVol on the selected aggregate.

Suppressed comments (2)

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java:610

getNetworkInterface wraps unexpected exceptions in a CloudRuntimeException but drops the original cause, which makes upstream error handling/debugging harder (especially since callers may rewrap again).

        } catch (CloudRuntimeException e) {
            throw e;
        } catch (Exception e) {
            logger.error("Exception while retrieving network interfaces: ", e);
            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Failed to retrieve network interfaces: " + e.getMessage());
        }

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java:233

This refactor changes the public API by removing the previous overloads createStorageVolume(String, Long) and getNetworkInterface(); however, the repo still contains unit tests that call the old signatures (e.g. StorageStrategyTest and OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest). As-is, this will fail compilation unless those tests are updated (or compatibility wrappers are added).

    public Aggregate chooseAggregate(Long size) {
        String svmName = storage.getSvmName();
        if (aggregates == null || aggregates.isEmpty()) {
            logger.error("No aggregates available to create volume on SVM " + svmName);
            throw new CloudRuntimeException("No aggregates available to create volume on SVM " + svmName);
        }
        if (size == null || size <= 0) {
            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Invalid volume size provided: " + size);

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (3)

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java:564

Potential NullPointerException: iface.getIp() is dereferenced without a null check (iface.getIp().getAddress()). If ONTAP returns an interface record without an IP object, this will NPE and abort LIF selection. Consider skipping records with missing IP/address before calling isIPv4Address(...).

            for (IpInterface iface : response.getRecords()) {
                if (!Boolean.TRUE.equals(iface.getEnabled()) || !OntapStorageConstants.LIF_STATE_UP.equals(iface.getState())) {
                    continue;
                }
                if (!isIPv4Address(iface.getIp().getAddress())) {
                    continue;

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java:165

processDataLifSelection(...) can send a storage alert when a LIF warning is present. With the new ordering, this alert may fire before FlexVol creation succeeds; if volume creation later fails, operators may see alerts for a pool that never got created. Consider splitting LIF validation (fail fast before volume creation) from alert emission (only after volume creation succeeds).

            Pair<String, String> lifResult;
            try {
                lifResult = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                logger.error("Exception occurred while retrieving network interface for pool: " + storagePoolName, e);
                throw new CloudRuntimeException("Failed to retrieve Data LIF from ONTAP: " + e.getMessage(), e);
            }
            processDataLifSelection(lifResult, details, storagePoolName, zoneId, podId);

            logger.info("Creating ONTAP volume '" + storagePoolName + "' with size: " + capacityBytes + " bytes (" +

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java:224

chooseAggregate() is documented and implemented to pick the online aggregate with the largest available block space, but connect(true) currently calls validateAndSelectAggregatesForVolumeCreation(...), which overwrites this.aggregates with List.of(aggr) on each match. That means chooseAggregate() will typically see only the last eligible aggregate rather than all candidates, so the “largest available” selection can be wrong depending on SVM aggregate ordering.

     * Selects the best aggregate for a volume of the given size from candidates populated by
     * {@link #connect(boolean)} with aggregate validation enabled.
     *
     * <p>Picks the online aggregate with the largest available block space that can fit
     * {@code size}. The returned aggregate includes node information for LIF affinity.</p>
     *
     * @param size requested volume size in bytes
     * @return the chosen aggregate detail response

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Suppressed comments (1)

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java:278

In chooseAggregate(), the log message says "for volume creation" but the thrown exception says "for volume operations". Keeping these consistent helps troubleshooting and makes it easier to assert on errors in tests/logs.

            logger.error("No suitable aggregates found on SVM " + svmName + " for volume creation.");
            throw new CloudRuntimeException("No suitable aggregates found on SVM " + svmName + " for volume operations.");

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Suppressed comments (11)

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java:876

getNetworkInterface(...) now returns a Map<String,String>, but this test still assigns it to Pair, which will not compile. Convert the returned map into the Pair used by the assertions (or assert on the map directly).

        Pair<String, String> result = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java:1008

getNetworkInterface(...) now returns a Map<String,String>, but this test still uses Pair, which will not compile. Convert the returned map to a Pair for the existing assertions (or update assertions to use map keys).

        Pair<String, String> result = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java:1027

getNetworkInterface(...) now returns a Map<String,String>, but this test still uses Pair, which will not compile. Convert the returned map to a Pair for the existing assertions (or update assertions to use map keys).

        Pair<String, String> result = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java:1048

getNetworkInterface(...) now returns a Map<String,String>, but this test still uses Pair, which will not compile. Convert the returned map to a Pair for the existing assertions (or update assertions to use map keys).

        Pair<String, String> result = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java:1092

getNetworkInterface(...) now returns a Map<String,String>, but this test still uses Pair, which will not compile. Convert the returned map to a Pair for the existing assertions (or update assertions to use map keys).

        Pair<String, String> result = storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(aggregate);

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:136

StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(...) now returns Map<String,String>, but the mock is configured to return Pair. This will not compile and also doesn't match how OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle reads DATA_LIF/LIF_WARNING from the map.

        when(storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(any())).thenReturn(new Pair<>("testNetworkInterface", null));

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:449

StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(...) now returns Map<String,String>, but this test still stubs it with Pair. Return a map with DATA_LIF/LIF_WARNING so initialize() can read it correctly.

        when(storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(any())).thenReturn(new Pair<>("10.0.0.1", warningMessage));

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:484

StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(...) now returns Map<String,String>, but this test still stubs it with Pair. Use an empty map (or a map without DATA_LIF) to exercise the null Data LIF path.

        when(storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(any())).thenReturn(new Pair<>(null, null));

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:645

StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(...) now returns Map<String,String>, but this test still stubs it with Pair. Return a map with DATA_LIF so initialize() can proceed.

        when(storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(any())).thenReturn(new Pair<>(expectedDataLif, null));

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:516

StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(...) now returns Map<String,String>, but this test still stubs it with Pair. Return a map with DATA_LIF set to an empty string to hit the empty-lif validation.

        when(storageStrategy.getNetworkInterface(any())).thenReturn(new Pair<>("", null));

plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java:33

Once getNetworkInterface(...) stubs are updated to return Map<String,String> (as required by the refactor), com.cloud.utils.Pair is no longer referenced in this test and the import will fail compilation. Remove the unused Pair import.

This issue also appears in the following locations of the same file:

line 136
line 449
line 484
line 516
line 645

import org.apache.cloudstack.storage.feign.model.Aggregate;

github-actions · 2026-08-12T10:18:14Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.59%
Branch coverage	18.76%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-08-13T07:00:11Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.59%
Branch coverage	18.76%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-08-31T10:35:58Z

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

github-actions · 2026-10-08T11:05:57Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.77%
Branch coverage	18.91%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-10-08T11:25:50Z

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

github-actions · 2026-10-12T05:29:48Z

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

github-actions · 2026-10-12T07:40:20Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.85%
Branch coverage	19.01%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

…rage volume; Also, the corresponding UT changes

# Conflicts: # plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java

github-actions · 2026-10-15T15:23:36Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.86%
Branch coverage	19.02%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-11-02T07:55:40Z

                    (capacityBytes / (1024 * 1024 * 1024)) + " GB)");
            try {
-                Volume volume = storageStrategy.createStorageVolume(storagePoolName, capacityBytes);
+                Volume volume = storageStrategy.createStorageVolume(storagePoolName, capacityBytes, aggregate);


One negative scenario I see here is when the volume creation itself fails. In that case, displaying a LIF warning to the user may not add much value. Can we consider showing the LIF warning only if the volume creation succeeds?

Even Surya pointed this out. Don't you think if there's an issue with their ONTAP which is causing the LIF warning, displaying it would help the user fix it?
Anyways the LIF warning will be shown separately under 'Alerts' section in Infrastructure summary, while the reason for Volume creation failure would be an event notification. So, chances of confusion also is less, I feel.
What do you think?

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-11-02T08:02:41Z

        }
+        List<Aggregate> eligibleAggregates = new ArrayList<>();
        for (Aggregate aggr : aggrs) {
            logger.debug("Found aggregate: " + aggr.getName() + " with UUID: " + aggr.getUuid());


It would be good to keep exception handling as part of this logic. If processing one of the initial aggregates runs into an exception, we may otherwise stop iterating over the remaining aggregates and not be able to proceed with the workflow. This can also be addressed as part of a subsequent PR.

Felt that if there's an issue while fetching one aggregate, the same might be the case with others too? Also, if an ideal aggregate throwed an error and we moved ahead and picked an alternate aggregate, don't you think user experience would reduce?
Maybe if our priority is not to create a storagepool using best available aggregate but only to cater to user's request, maybe I can add exception handling for 5xx series alone?
What do you think?

This is the right approach. At the same time, we should avoid failing pool creation as long as there is another eligible aggregate available that we can try.

Cool, let me modify the code to handle 5XX exceptions. This should atleast avoid failing pool creation in case if an equally better aggregate exists. And the call still fails for 4XX exceptions, so that we don't have to repeat for other aggregates, only to receive the same.

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-11-02T08:04:43Z

            throw new CloudRuntimeException("No suitable aggregates found on SVM " + svmName + " for volume operations.");
        }
-        logger.info("Selected aggregate: " + aggrChosen.getName() + " for volume operations.");
+        if (aggrChosen.getNode() == null || aggrChosen.getNode().getName() == null


We should perform this validation as part of the aggregate selection itself. This would allow us to move to the next available aggregate if the current one fails validation, thereby increasing the chances of successful provisioning.

Sure, will add these checks in aggregate selection.

rajiv-jain-netapp

I have left a few important comments. Since they are not blocking the current functionality, you can address them in an upcoming PR. However, please make sure they are tracked through a separate Jira so that we don’t miss them. With that, I’m approving this PR.

sandeeplocharla requested review from sathvikaragi and a lite review from Copilot August 10, 2026 03:01

sandeeplocharla requested review from piyush5netapp, rajiv-jain-netapp and suryag1201 as code owners August 10, 2026 03:01

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla August 10, 2026 03:02

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 10, 2026 05:09

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla August 10, 2026 05:09

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from ee12d80 to 900b098 Compare August 10, 2026 05:21

piyush5netapp reviewed Aug 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...ap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java Resolved

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from 900b098 to 454c972 Compare August 12, 2026 05:49

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 12, 2026 05:49

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla August 12, 2026 05:50

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 12, 2026 06:17

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla August 12, 2026 06:17

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...ge/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java Resolved

rajiv-jain-netapp force-pushed the main branch from 4ed22b2 to 065269a Compare August 12, 2026 06:27

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from feeff79 to 92bd9ce Compare August 13, 2026 05:57

sandeeplocharla self-assigned this Aug 14, 2026

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Aug 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...ap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java Resolved

suryag1201 reviewed Aug 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...ap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java Resolved

github-actions Bot added the status:has-conflicts label Aug 31, 2026

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from 92bd9ce to d2633cc Compare September 21, 2026 05:48

github-actions Bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Sep 21, 2026

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from c6b8de1 to 0b8a4a8 Compare October 8, 2026 09:31

github-actions Bot added the status:has-conflicts label Oct 8, 2026

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from 6b6876e to 6ecdda0 Compare October 8, 2026 11:58

github-actions Bot added status:has-conflicts and removed status:has-conflicts labels Oct 8, 2026

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch 2 times, most recently from 1a902f2 to 9818f47 Compare October 12, 2026 06:48

github-actions Bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Oct 12, 2026

suryag1201 reviewed Oct 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...torage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java Resolved

sandeeplocharla added 8 commits October 15, 2026 06:21

Refactor code to choose aggregate, network interface and creating sto…

639d9e1

…rage volume; Also, the corresponding UT changes

Added missing UTs

1650341

# Conflicts: # plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java

Addressed review comments

4ff2956

Committed missed test files

2a6db30

Addressed review comments

6aacd02

Brought back the missing changes

2013a6d

pre-check failure fix

364e96c

Added a precautionary null check for network interface IP

ed7ac6b

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the bugfix/CSTACKEX-238 branch from 9818f47 to ed7ac6b Compare October 15, 2026 01:20

Fixed a build issue

10c3d31

suryag1201 approved these changes Oct 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Nov 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

rajiv-jain-netapp approved these changes Nov 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

sandeeplocharla merged commit 42b3d88 into main Nov 2, 2026
12 checks passed

Conversation

sandeeplocharla commented Aug 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 12, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 12, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 15, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

sandeeplocharla commented Aug 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal