net, virt: RHCOS9 and RHCOS10 Worker Nodes Support#65
Open
azhivovk wants to merge 1 commit intoRedHatQE:mainfrom
Open
net, virt: RHCOS9 and RHCOS10 Worker Nodes Support#65azhivovk wants to merge 1 commit intoRedHatQE:mainfrom
azhivovk wants to merge 1 commit intoRedHatQE:mainfrom
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:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new Software Test Plan document was added for OpenShift Virtualization network testing on heterogeneous RHCOS 9/10 clusters, specifying QE metadata, P0/P1 goals for bidirectional VM live migration across multiple network configurations, scope boundaries, required environments, CI lane expectations, risks, and traceable CNV-77027 scenarios. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ 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 |
|
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: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md`:
- Line 123: Update the inconsistent "Cluster Topology: Agnostic" label to
reflect the actual required topologies used by the plan: replace the "Cluster
Topology: Agnostic" occurrences (including the instances around the lines
referencing 68-69, 88-90, and 123) with explicit wording such as "Cluster
Topology: Mixed RHCOS9 + RHCOS10, and All-RHCOS10" (or two separate entries) so
the document matches the stated test requirements; search for the exact string
"Cluster Topology:" in the file and change the value accordingly wherever it
currently reads "Agnostic".
- Line 194: The mitigation sentence "- **Mitigation:** Proceed with the
network-scoped STP independently; sync the main STP is available to identify and
resolve any overlaps or gaps." is grammatically broken; update the line (the
mitigation string) to read clearly, e.g. "Proceed with the network-scoped STP
independently; synchronize with the main STP when it becomes available to
identify and resolve any overlaps or gaps." Replace the existing mitigation
sentence in the document (the line starting with "- **Mitigation:** Proceed with
the network-scoped STP independently;") with this corrected phrasing.
- Line 7: The "Enhancement(s): -" metadata entry should be replaced with a
concrete reference to the related HLD or enhancement PR; edit the
"Enhancement(s)" field in stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md
(the line containing **Enhancement(s):**) and change "-" to a markdown link to
the HLD or enhancement PR (or the HLD if no PR exists) so the STP metadata is
traceable and auditable.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 6675e2f8-988e-48f0-b314-79b2acdde433
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md
azhivovk
force-pushed
the
rhel9_rhel10_nodes_arch
branch
from
122e6bf to
92a8885
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Change: Apply bot's suggestions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md (1)
173-181: Normalize terminology formatting for consistency.The document mixes
Tier2/Tier 2andRHCOS10/RHCOS 10. Please standardize these terms to avoid ambiguity in test planning docs.Suggested wording cleanup
- - [x] **Risk:** Not testing Tier2 network tests on heterogeneous cluster. + - [x] **Risk:** Not testing Tier 2 network tests on heterogeneous cluster. ... - - *Missing resources or infrastructure:* No RHCOS10 clusters available for network Tier2 regression. + - *Missing resources or infrastructure:* No RHCOS 10 clusters available for network Tier 2 regression.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md` around lines 173 - 181, Standardize terminology formatting across the document by replacing inconsistent instances of "Tier2" with "Tier 2" and "RHCOS10" with "RHCOS 10" (e.g., within the "Risk" and "Test Environment" sections and checklist items) so all references use the spaced form; update every occurrence of these tokens (including checklist lines like "Not testing Tier2 network tests" and "Dedicated all-RHCOS 10 cluster" wording) to the chosen normalized forms for consistency.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In `@stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md`:
- Around line 173-181: Standardize terminology formatting across the document by
replacing inconsistent instances of "Tier2" with "Tier 2" and "RHCOS10" with
"RHCOS 10" (e.g., within the "Risk" and "Test Environment" sections and
checklist items) so all references use the spaced form; update every occurrence
of these tokens (including checklist lines like "Not testing Tier2 network
tests" and "Dedicated all-RHCOS 10 cluster" wording) to the chosen normalized
forms for consistency.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 04eac364-7067-415b-b792-ee8b4cc7728a
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-network/rhcos9-rhcos10-nodes-net-support.md
EdDev
reviewed
Apr 12, 2026
Collaborator
EdDev
left a comment
EdDev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A new revised rules have been merged recently. I suggest you rebase and post an updated content based on it. Coderabbit should kick in as well (but you can push it in a god share already with local treatment in advance).
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a sig-virt owned feature, please relocate under their folder.
Also, I would start with placing it under a folder, like heterogeneous-rhcos9-rhcos10 folder (the file name being something like network.md).
| - *List the key D/S requirements reviewed:* VM live migration must work without network disruption in both directions on a mixed-node (RHEL 9 + RHEL 10) cluster, and overall network functionality must work on an all-RHEL 10 cluster. | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] **Understand Value and Customer Use Cases** | ||
| - *Describe the feature's value to customers:* Customers can migrate their clusters from RHEL 9 to RHEL 10 nodes without service disruption, maintaining VM network connectivity and live migration capability throughout the transition. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - *Describe the feature's value to customers:* Customers can migrate their clusters from RHEL 9 to RHEL 10 nodes without service disruption, maintaining VM network connectivity and live migration capability throughout the transition. | |
| - *Describe the feature's value to customers:* Customers can upgrade their clusters from RHEL 9 to RHEL 10 nodes, gradually, without service disruption, maintaining VM network connectivity and live migration capability throughout the transition. |
azhivovk
force-pushed
the
rhel9_rhel10_nodes_arch
branch
from
92a8885 to
833f2d3
Compare
openshift-virtualization-qe-bot
requested review from
SamAlber,
akri3i,
kbidarkar and
vsibirsk
Contributor
Author
|
Change: rebase as new STP format and review were merged, and fix all STP accordingly |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/heterogeneous-rhcos9-rhcos10/network.md`:
- Line 10: Update the "QE Owner(s)" metadata entry to include contact
information for the listed owner—replace or augment the existing line "QE
Owner(s): Asia Khromov" with a name plus at least one contact (e.g., GitHub
handle, email, or Slack handle). Ensure the change is made in the "QE Owner(s)"
field in network.md so it reads like "QE Owner(s): Asia Khromov (github:
`@username`, email: name@example.com)" or similar per STP Metadata guidelines.
- Line 174: Update Section II.3 to replace the generic "Storage: Agnostic" with
the specific storage class(es) used by the test environments (e.g., "Storage:
gp2, ebs-sc", or "StorageClass: local-path, ceph-rbd" as appropriate) and also
state the platform type (e.g., "Platform: Bare metal" or "Platform: AWS");
locate the Section II.3 Test Environment block that currently contains "Storage:
Agnostic" and modify the storage line to list exact StorageClass names and add a
Platform line so the Test Environment follows the STP guideline requiring
specific storage class and platform.
- Line 187: Remove the non-actionable line "**Test Framework:** Standard" in
section II.3.1 (the literal string from the diff) and either delete the field
entirely or replace it with a concrete non-standard/new testing tool name(s)
used (e.g., a specific proprietary harness or custom framework); ensure II.3.1
lists only NEW or non‑standard tools per the STP guideline.
- Around line 95-97: The P1 testing goal ("P1 Validate that all existing network
features work correctly for VMs running on an all-RHCOS 10 cluster") in the
goals list lacks traceable scenario coverage in Section III; either add explicit
scenario(s) in Section III that map this P1 goal to a Jira requirement (include
Jira ID, Tier, Priority and a short scenario title) or tighten the P1 wording to
only cover scenarios already listed; update the scenarios referenced around
"Section III" and the block covering lines 261-283 to include the new
all-RHCOS10 scenario(s) with their Jira IDs so every Testing Goal/Acceptance
Criterion is traceable.
- Around line 95-97: Add at least one explicit negative/edge-case migration
scenario to the existing VM migration goals (the **[P0]** and **[P1]** bullets)
that covers failure/partial-failure and concurrency behavior — for example:
describe a forced interruption during live migration from RHCOS 9 → RHCOS 10
(and back), expected rollback semantics, expected network connectivity
degradation thresholds, and steps to reproduce including simultaneous VM
migrations and induced packet loss; ensure the new scenario references the
original **[P0]** goal and the rollback/interrupt expectations are mirrored for
the reverse migration and noted to apply across “all supported network
configurations” (also add similar negative-case entries near lines 261-283 as
indicated).
- Around line 17-20: The definitions use internal-implementation terms; update
the lines referencing UDN, SR-IOV, and OVN-K to be user-facing: describe UDN as
a project-level "User Defined Network" feature that lets teams define custom
networks, SR-IOV as a hardware capability that exposes multiple virtual NICs
from a single physical NIC for improved performance, and OVN-K as the cluster
network solution used to provide pod-to-pod networking — remove mentions of
"CRD", "CNI provider", and other API/component names so the text focuses on
user-visible behavior and outcomes.
- Line 7: Replace the literal line "Enhancement(s): N/A — no VEP exists for this
feature." in the document (the line beginning with "Enhancement(s):") with a
proper VEP/design/HLD link: if no VEP exists, insert the canonical HLD URL (full
absolute link) and a short title (e.g., "HLD: <Title> — <URL>") so the field
points to a concrete design document rather than "N/A".
🪄 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: 20a80727-33d4-4c73-9358-9b8948920738
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/heterogeneous-rhcos9-rhcos10/network.md
azhivovk
force-pushed
the
rhel9_rhel10_nodes_arch
branch
from
833f2d3 to
2da6b42
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Change: apply bot's suggestions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/heterogeneous-rhcos9-rhcos10/network.md`:
- Around line 216-226: Replace all occurrences of the string "Tier2" with "Tier
2" in the network.md content (notably in the bullet lines containing "**Risk:**
Not testing Tier2 network tests" and "*Missing resources or infrastructure:* No
RHCOS10 clusters available for network Tier2 regression") so the document
consistently uses "Tier 2" throughout; update any related inline occurrences in
the Risk/Mitigation/Sign-off bullets so searching and formatting are uniform.
🪄 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: 4d127397-ddfd-4e83-b738-b40fb1440cac
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/heterogeneous-rhcos9-rhcos10/network.md
Network STP aspect for virt's feature Signed-off-by: Asia Khromov <azhivovk@redhat.com>
azhivovk
force-pushed
the
rhel9_rhel10_nodes_arch
branch
from
2da6b42 to
98362cb
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Change: Tier2 -> Tier 2 |
nirdothan
reviewed
Apr 15, 2026
| **Document Conventions (if applicable):** | ||
| RHCOS = Red Hat CoreOS, the immutable container-optimized OS used for OpenShift worker nodes | ||
| dual-stream cluster = a heterogeneous cluster running both RHCOS 9 and RHCOS 10 worker nodes | ||
| UDN = User Defined Network, a feature that lets teams define custom overlay networks at the project level |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if this is a standard definition for UDN, but if not, I would not call it a "feature" and say that it lets "teams" do things. Please respond if you'd like a suggestion and if it's standard then you can ignore.
| - *Note any gaps or missing criteria:* None | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] **Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)** | ||
| - *List applicable NFRs and their targets:* Coverage: all existing Tier 2 network tests pass on an all-RHCOS 10 cluster. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that it's a non functional requirement.
| - [x] **Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)** | ||
| - *List applicable NFRs and their targets:* Coverage: all existing Tier 2 network tests pass on an all-RHCOS 10 cluster. | ||
| - *Note any NFRs not covered and why:* | ||
| - Performance: no new performance requirements introduced; migration timing is validated qualitatively via connectivity checks. Deferred to main STP. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"migration timing is validated qualitatively via connectivity checks"
I'm not sure what this means but it seems functional.
| #### **3. Technology and Design Review** | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] **Developer Handoff/QE Kickoff** | ||
| - *Key takeaways and concerns:* New migration tests are needed for the heterogeneous (RHCOS 9 + RHCOS 10) cluster topology; existing Tier 2 network regression must run against an all-RHCOS 10 cluster to validate compatibility. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: separate the 2 takeways into separate bullets.
| - *Test Scenario:* [Tier 2] Verify VM with SR-IOV network live migrates between RHCOS 9 and RHCOS 10 nodes (in both directions) without connectivity loss. | ||
| - *Priority:* P0 | ||
|
|
||
| - **[CNV-77027]** — As a cluster admin, I want VMs using passt binding to live migrate across RHCOS 9 and RHCOS 10 nodes without network disruption. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Passt is still TP, consider deferring this use case.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Network STP aspect for virt's feature
STP Metadata
VEP issue: -
What this PR does
Network STP aspect for virt's feature for planning the necessary network tests for the feature
Special notes for your reviewer
Main virt STP is not ready but network aspect can already start
Summary by CodeRabbit