Bug 1901848

Summary: Adding information regarding 'Copying Data' phase: Started/Completed/In Progress for each disk
Product: Migration Toolkit for Virtualization Reporter: Maayan Hadasi <mguetta>
Component: User ExperienceAssignee: Arik <ahadas>
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED QA Contact: Maayan Hadasi <mguetta>
Severity: medium Docs Contact: Avital Pinnick <apinnick>
Priority: medium    
Version: 2.0.0CC: ahadas, fdupont, istein, jortel
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: RFE
Target Release: 2.4.0Flags: mturley: needinfo? (jortel)
mturley: needinfo? (fdupont)
mturley: needinfo? (jortel)
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-07-12 16:57:46 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Maayan Hadasi 2020-11-26 09:01:33 UTC
Description of problem:
There could be cases that by looking in MTV UI it seems as the disk copy was started, but actually it wasn't.
For example, in case of vddk-init image is missing in v2v-vmware ConfigMap and an API migration is executed -> vmimport CR is created but is not running actually, and in MTV UI the copyingDisk for this VM seems to be in progress


Expected results:
To track the copying disk progress for each VM migration and to catch the cases where the copy wasn't started or got stuck.


Additional info:
By Jeff Ortel:
Within the DiskTransfer step in the pipeline there is a list of Tasks (one for each disk) which contains all of the same fields as a Step including:
Started (timestamp)
Completed (timestamp)
Progress { total: n, completed: n}
Phase as reported on in the DataVolume status.

Comment 1 Fabien Dupont 2021-03-10 14:56:23 UTC
Not ready for 2.0.0. Moving to 2.1.0.

Comment 2 Mike Turley 2021-03-10 15:00:26 UTC
@jortel, am I correct in assuming that this would require additional status data in the API?

Comment 3 Mike Turley 2021-05-11 16:37:22 UTC
This would also require new design work.. Fabien, are we ok with moving this to 2.2.0 to focus on hooks and RHV migration?

Comment 4 Fabien Dupont 2021-05-11 17:18:58 UTC
Deal. Hooks and RHV are higher priority.

Comment 5 Mike Turley 2021-11-30 14:37:01 UTC
Fabien, am I correct in assuming this will be part of the new Settings page that still needs backend work, so it should be in 2.4.0?

Comment 6 Mike Turley 2021-11-30 14:44:55 UTC
Sorry, I intended the above comment for a different BZ. I do think we may need to push this back to 2.4.0 though since it still needs backend work and design. @jortel do you have any thoughts on trying to do this for 2.3.0?