Skip to content

WIP: [Virt] Support MIG vgpu#71

Open
akri3i wants to merge 1 commit intoRedHatQE:mainfrom
akri3i:mig-vgpu
Open

WIP: [Virt] Support MIG vgpu#71
akri3i wants to merge 1 commit intoRedHatQE:mainfrom
akri3i:mig-vgpu

Conversation

@akri3i
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@akri3i akri3i commented Apr 6, 2026

STP Metadata

VEP issue:

What this PR does

Adds the Software Test Plan (STP) for the MIG vGPU feature, planning tests for VMs Running with MIG backed VGPU

Special notes for your reviewer

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Added comprehensive quality engineering test plan for MIG vGPU feature, including testing strategy, acceptance criteria, known limitations, required environment setup, and traceability requirements for OpenShift Virtualization deployments.

Signed-off-by: akri3i <guptaakriti70@gmail.com>
@akri3i
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

akri3i commented Apr 6, 2026

/wip

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 6, 2026

Walkthrough

A new test plan document is added for MIG vGPU functionality in OpenShift Virtualization, containing feature requirements, testing strategy, environment specifications, known limitations, and QE approval tracking.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
MIG vGPU Test Plan
stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md
New Quality Engineering test plan document with feature overview, testing goals, functional/non-functional/compatibility testing strategies, required cluster environment configurations, entry criteria, risk assessment, and requirement traceability mapping.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title indicates WIP status and mentions MIG vgpu support, which aligns with adding an STP document for MIG vGPU testing, but the WIP prefix and lack of clear specificity about the document type reduce clarity.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-2
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

  • Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
  • Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
  • Issue Creation: A tracking issue is created for this PR and will be closed when the PR is merged or closed
  • Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
  • Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
  • Labels: Enabled categories: branch, can-be-merged, cherry-pick, has-conflicts, hold, needs-rebase, size, verified, wip

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

  • /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
  • /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
  • /hold - Block PR merging (approvers only)
  • /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging
  • /verified - Mark PR as verified
  • /verified cancel - Remove verification status
  • /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
  • /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message

Review & Approval

  • /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
  • /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
  • /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
  • /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
  • /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

  • /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
  • /retest all - Run all available tests

Cherry-pick Operations

  • /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
    • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3

Label Management

  • /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
  • /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

  1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
  2. LGTM Count: Minimum 2 /lgtm from reviewers
  3. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
  4. No Blockers: No wip, hold, has-conflicts labels and PR must be mergeable (no conflicts)

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

  • dshchedr
  • vsibirsk

Reviewers:

  • SamAlber
  • SiboWang1997
  • akri3i
  • dshchedr
  • jerry7z
  • kbidarkar
  • vsibirsk
Available Labels
  • hold
  • verified
  • wip
  • lgtm
  • approve
AI Features
  • Cherry-Pick Conflict Resolution: Enabled (claude/claude-opus-4-6[1m])

💡 Tips

  • WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
  • Verification: The verified label is removed on new commits unless the push is detected as a clean rebase
  • Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
  • Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
  • Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 12

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md (1)

219-219: Consider simplifying wording.

"prior to" can be simplified to "before" for more concise documentation.

♻️ Proposed simplification
-- **Special Configurations:** GPU node must have MIG mode enabled and appropriate MIG profiles configured prior to test execution
+- **Special Configurations:** GPU node must have MIG mode enabled and appropriate MIG profiles configured before test execution
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 219, Replace the phrase "prior to"
with "before" in the sentence "**Special Configurations:** GPU node must have
MIG mode enabled and appropriate MIG profiles configured prior to test
execution" so it reads "...configured before test execution" to simplify wording
and improve conciseness.
🤖 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/mig-vgpu-stp.md`:
- Line 13: Update the "**Participating SIGs:**" field in the mig-vgpu-stp.md
document: either list the other SIGs participating (e.g., "sig-foo, sig-bar") if
there are collaborators, or remove the line entirely or replace it with "None"
when sig-virt is the only SIG; ensure the final text uses the exact
"**Participating SIGs:**" label so reviewers can find it easily.
- Around line 142-148: The "Test Limitations" section contains two unresolved
sign-off placeholders for the NVIDIA A30-specific limitation and the MIG-capable
GPU hardware requirement; complete both sign-off fields by replacing
"[Name/Date]" with the approver's full name and approval date for each bullet
(the bullet mentioning "NVIDIA A30 GPU" and the bullet mentioning "MIG-capable
GPU hardware (e.g., NVIDIA A100)"), ensuring the completed entries are accurate
and authoritative before final STP approval.
- Line 11: Populate the QE Owner(s) field in the STP header by replacing the
placeholder "[Name(s)]" with the actual responsible QE engineer name(s); update
the "QE Owner(s):" entry so it lists one or more real names (e.g., "QE Owner(s):
Jane Doe, John Smith") before approving the document.
- Around line 116-141: Populate the PM/Lead Agreement placeholders for each
out-of-scope bullet so the document records explicit sign-offs: add a named
approver and date in place of each "[Name/Date]" for the items "Legacy GPUs
without MIG support", "Advanced multi-tenancy beyond GPU-level isolation",
"Custom MIG topologies beyond standard configurations", "Windows guest OS", "GPU
benchmark / performance testing inside VMs", and "MIG profile configuration and
GPU Operator installation" to indicate formal acceptance of these exclusions.
- Around line 266-268: The Test Environment risk block currently lacks an
approver signature; update the risk acknowledgement paragraph (the "**Risk:**
Only one NVIDIA A30 GPU node..." / "**Mitigation:** None" block) to include a
completed sign-off by replacing "[Name/Date]" with the approver's full name and
the approval date in YYYY-MM-DD (or the project's standard date format),
ensuring the "*Sign-off:*" line reads e.g. "*Sign-off:* Alice Smith /
2026-04-06" so the document has a clear, traceable approval for the Test
Environment risk.
- Around line 70-79: The Known Limitations section contains placeholder
sign-offs "[Name/Date]" for each bullet (e.g., the lines "Only RHEL guest OS is
validated", "MIG vGPU for Windows guests is only supported on vGPUs created on
RTX Pro 6000 hardware...", and "MIG vGPU configuration requires
pre-configuration of the GPU node..."); replace each placeholder with the actual
reviewer/approver name and date to complete the sign-off fields so the STP can
be approved.
- Around line 5-13: The Metadata & Tracking section currently omits the VEP
field referenced in the PR objectives; either add a "VEP:" (or "VEP issue:")
entry under the "Metadata & Tracking" block with an appropriate value or
placeholder (e.g., "VEP: TBD" or the VEP number) so the text "STP Metadata: VEP
issue field is present but not filled" matches the document, or update the PR
description to explicitly state that a VEP is not applicable; locate and modify
the "Metadata & Tracking" section (the header and the list containing
Enhancement(s), Feature Tracking, Epic Tracking, QE Owner(s), Owning SIG,
Participating SIG) to include the new VEP field or change the PR description
accordingly.
- Line 7: Replace the placeholder line labeled "Enhancement(s):" with either the
link(s) to the relevant enhancement PR(s) (e.g., OpenShift/KubeVirt enhancement
URLs) or, if no enhancement exists, a link and brief citation to the High-Level
Design (HLD) document; update the "Enhancement(s):" field in the document so it
no longer contains placeholder text and includes the actual enhancement or HLD
reference.
- Line 243: Update the entry criterion checklist in mig-vgpu-stp.md by marking
the "Requirements and design documents are **approved and merged**" item as
satisfied: change the unchecked box "[ ] Requirements and design documents are
**approved and merged**" to a checked box "[x] Requirements and design documents
are **approved and merged**" and, if possible, add a brief reference (PR/MR
number or link) to the merged approval artifact so reviewers can verify the
prerequisite is met.
- Around line 81-102: The Technology and Design Review section has unchecked
items and placeholder text; update the checklist by marking the boxes as
completed where content is provided (check "Technology Challenges", "API
Extensions", and "Topology Considerations") and replace the placeholder in
"Developer Handoff/QE Kickoff" with a concise summary of handoff actions and QE
kickoff steps (who, what, and follow-ups), and either populate "Test Environment
Needs" with the referenced environment/tool details from Section II.3/II.3.1 or
add a short note that the item requires stakeholder confirmation; reference the
section headings "Developer Handoff/QE Kickoff", "Technology Challenges", "API
Extensions", "Test Environment Needs", and "Topology Considerations" when making
these edits.
- Line 197: Summary: The phrase "MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware" must be
hyphenated as a compound adjective. In the document string "MIG supported NVIDIA
GPU hardware" (found in mig-vgpu-stp.md near the details line), replace it with
"MIG-supported NVIDIA GPU hardware" so the compound adjective correctly modifies
"NVIDIA GPU hardware"; ensure any other occurrences of the exact phrase "MIG
supported" used as a modifier are updated the same way.
- Line 72: Fix the malformed bold markup on the line containing "Only RHEL guest
OS is validated" by removing the trailing `**` so the bold formatting is
balanced; update the line in mig-vgpu-stp.md from "**Only RHEL guest OS is
validated **" to either "**Only RHEL guest OS is validated**" (to keep bold) or
"Only RHEL guest OS is validated" (to remove bold) as appropriate.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md`:
- Line 219: Replace the phrase "prior to" with "before" in the sentence
"**Special Configurations:** GPU node must have MIG mode enabled and appropriate
MIG profiles configured prior to test execution" so it reads "...configured
before test execution" to simplify wording and improve conciseness.
🪄 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: 2b4c6e69-de0d-4785-9981-c46731afe75b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dc8aed7 and 8b4dfee.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md

Comment on lines +5 to +13
### **Metadata & Tracking**

- **Enhancement(s):** [Links to enhancement(s); KubeVirt, OpenShift, etc.]
- **Feature Tracking:** https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/VIRTSTRAT-166
- **Epic Tracking:** https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/CNV-13713
<!-- Tasks must be created to block the feature -->
- **QE Owner(s):** [Name(s)]
- **Owning SIG:** sig-virt
- **Participating SIGs:** [List of participating SIGs]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Address VEP issue field mentioned in PR objectives.

The PR description states "STP Metadata: VEP issue field is present but not filled," but no VEP (Validated Enhancement Proposal) field appears in the Metadata & Tracking section. Please either:

  • Add the VEP field with appropriate value/placeholder, or
  • Clarify in the PR description if the VEP field is not applicable to this STP
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` around lines 5 - 13, The Metadata & Tracking
section currently omits the VEP field referenced in the PR objectives; either
add a "VEP:" (or "VEP issue:") entry under the "Metadata & Tracking" block with
an appropriate value or placeholder (e.g., "VEP: TBD" or the VEP number) so the
text "STP Metadata: VEP issue field is present but not filled" matches the
document, or update the PR description to explicitly state that a VEP is not
applicable; locate and modify the "Metadata & Tracking" section (the header and
the list containing Enhancement(s), Feature Tracking, Epic Tracking, QE
Owner(s), Owning SIG, Participating SIG) to include the new VEP field or change
the PR description accordingly.


### **Metadata & Tracking**

- **Enhancement(s):** [Links to enhancement(s); KubeVirt, OpenShift, etc.]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Fill in the Enhancement(s) field or remove the placeholder.

The Enhancement(s) field contains placeholder text. If no OpenShift enhancement PR exists for this feature, reference the High-Level Design (HLD) document here. Based on learnings, it's acceptable to reference only the HLD when no enhancement PR exists.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 7, Replace the placeholder line
labeled "Enhancement(s):" with either the link(s) to the relevant enhancement
PR(s) (e.g., OpenShift/KubeVirt enhancement URLs) or, if no enhancement exists,
a link and brief citation to the High-Level Design (HLD) document; update the
"Enhancement(s):" field in the document so it no longer contains placeholder
text and includes the actual enhancement or HLD reference.

- **Feature Tracking:** https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/VIRTSTRAT-166
- **Epic Tracking:** https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/CNV-13713
<!-- Tasks must be created to block the feature -->
- **QE Owner(s):** [Name(s)]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Assign QE Owner(s) before approval.

The QE Owner(s) field must be populated with the actual name(s) of the responsible QE engineers before this STP can be approved.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 11, Populate the QE Owner(s) field in
the STP header by replacing the placeholder "[Name(s)]" with the actual
responsible QE engineer name(s); update the "QE Owner(s):" entry so it lists one
or more real names (e.g., "QE Owner(s): Jane Doe, John Smith") before approving
the document.

<!-- Tasks must be created to block the feature -->
- **QE Owner(s):** [Name(s)]
- **Owning SIG:** sig-virt
- **Participating SIGs:** [List of participating SIGs]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Specify Participating SIGs or remove if none.

The Participating SIGs field should list any other SIGs involved in this feature, or be removed/marked as "None" if sig-virt is the only participating SIG.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 13, Update the "**Participating
SIGs:**" field in the mig-vgpu-stp.md document: either list the other SIGs
participating (e.g., "sig-foo, sig-bar") if there are collaborators, or remove
the line entirely or replace it with "None" when sig-virt is the only SIG;
ensure the final text uses the exact "**Participating SIGs:**" label so
reviewers can find it easily.

Comment on lines +70 to +79
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]

- **Only RHEL guest OS is validated **
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]

- **MIG vGPU for Windows guests is only supported on vGPUs created on RTX Pro 6000 hardware; Windows MIG vGPU is not tested in this cycle as the available hardware is the A30**
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]

- **MIG vGPU configuration requires pre-configuration of the GPU node (MIG mode enabled, MIG profiles set) before VM scheduling**
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Complete sign-off fields for Known Limitations.

All Known Limitations require sign-off with name and date before this STP is approved. These sign-offs acknowledge the documented constraints.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` around lines 70 - 79, The Known Limitations
section contains placeholder sign-offs "[Name/Date]" for each bullet (e.g., the
lines "Only RHEL guest OS is validated", "MIG vGPU for Windows guests is only
supported on vGPUs created on RTX Pro 6000 hardware...", and "MIG vGPU
configuration requires pre-configuration of the GPU node..."); replace each
placeholder with the actual reviewer/approver name and date to complete the
sign-off fields so the STP can be approved.

Comment on lines +116 to +141
**Out of Scope (Testing Scope Exclusions)**

- **Legacy GPUs without MIG support**
- *Rationale:* Only Ampere and Hopper generation GPUs (e.g., A100, H100/H200) or later that support MIG are targeted; testing on non-MIG GPUs is not planned
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

- **Advanced multi-tenancy beyond GPU-level isolation**
- *Rationale:* Deep security isolation beyond MIG's hardware partitioning (e.g., vTPM integration) is not addressed in this feature
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

- **Custom MIG topologies beyond standard configurations**
- *Rationale:* Standard MIG slicing profiles recognized by the NVIDIA GPU Operator are assumed; custom or non-standard MIG topologies are not tested
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

- **Windows guest OS**
- *Rationale:* MIG vGPU for Windows is only supported on RTX Pro 6000 hardware; the available test hardware is the NVIDIA A30, which does not support Windows MIG vGPU
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

- **GPU benchmark / performance testing inside VMs**
- *Rationale:* No standardized GPU benchmark tooling integrated into CI; performance NFRs deferred to a future cycle
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

- **MIG profile configuration and GPU Operator installation**
- *Rationale:* Infrastructure pre-configuration is handled outside the test scope; tests assume a correctly configured GPU node
- *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Complete PM/Lead Agreement sign-offs for out-of-scope items.

All out-of-scope items require PM/Lead sign-off (lines 120, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140) to ensure alignment on testing boundaries. These should be completed before final STP approval.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` around lines 116 - 141, Populate the PM/Lead
Agreement placeholders for each out-of-scope bullet so the document records
explicit sign-offs: add a named approver and date in place of each "[Name/Date]"
for the items "Legacy GPUs without MIG support", "Advanced multi-tenancy beyond
GPU-level isolation", "Custom MIG topologies beyond standard configurations",
"Windows guest OS", "GPU benchmark / performance testing inside VMs", and "MIG
profile configuration and GPU Operator installation" to indicate formal
acceptance of these exclusions.

Comment on lines +142 to +148
**Test Limitations**

- **Testing is limited to the NVIDIA A30 GPU — other supported MIG-capable GPUs (e.g., A100, H100/H200) are not available in the test environment**
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]

- **MIG-capable GPU hardware (e.g., NVIDIA A100) must be available in the test cluster — tests cannot run on standard CI nodes**
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Complete sign-offs for Test Limitations.

Sign-off fields at lines 145 and 148 must be completed before final STP approval.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` around lines 142 - 148, The "Test Limitations"
section contains two unresolved sign-off placeholders for the NVIDIA
A30-specific limitation and the MIG-capable GPU hardware requirement; complete
both sign-off fields by replacing "[Name/Date]" with the approver's full name
and approval date for each bullet (the bullet mentioning "NVIDIA A30 GPU" and
the bullet mentioning "MIG-capable GPU hardware (e.g., NVIDIA A100)"), ensuring
the completed entries are accurate and authoritative before final STP approval.

**Infrastructure**

- [ ] **Cloud Testing**
- *Details:* N/A — feature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware.
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Hyphenate compound adjective.

"MIG supported" should be "MIG-supported" when used as a compound adjective modifying "NVIDIA GPU hardware."

📝 Proposed fix
-  - *Details:* N/A — feature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware.
+  - *Details:* N/A — feature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG-supported NVIDIA GPU hardware.
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
- *Details:* N/A — feature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware.
- *Details:* N/A — feature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG-supported NVIDIA GPU hardware.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~197-~197: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...ature requires bare-metal nodes with MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware. #### **3...

(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 197, Summary: The phrase "MIG
supported NVIDIA GPU hardware" must be hyphenated as a compound adjective. In
the document string "MIG supported NVIDIA GPU hardware" (found in
mig-vgpu-stp.md near the details line), replace it with "MIG-supported NVIDIA
GPU hardware" so the compound adjective correctly modifies "NVIDIA GPU
hardware"; ensure any other occurrences of the exact phrase "MIG supported" used
as a modifier are updated the same way.


The following conditions must be met before testing can begin:

- [ ] Requirements and design documents are **approved and merged**
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Requirements and design approval is a prerequisite.

Entry criterion "Requirements and design documents are approved and merged" is currently unchecked. This must be satisfied before testing begins.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` at line 243, Update the entry criterion
checklist in mig-vgpu-stp.md by marking the "Requirements and design documents
are **approved and merged**" item as satisfied: change the unchecked box "[ ]
Requirements and design documents are **approved and merged**" to a checked box
"[x] Requirements and design documents are **approved and merged**" and, if
possible, add a brief reference (PR/MR number or link) to the merged approval
artifact so reviewers can verify the prerequisite is met.

Comment on lines +266 to +268
- **Risk:** Only one NVIDIA A30 GPU node exists in a single cluster; if the node or cluster is unavailable (e.g., hardware failure, cluster maintenance), all MIG vGPU testing is blocked with no fallback environment.
- **Mitigation:** None — no alternative GPU hardware or cluster is available; testing is fully dependent on this single node's availability.
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Complete sign-off for Test Environment risk.

The risk acknowledgment at line 268 requires sign-off with name and date before final approval.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@stps/sig-virt/mig-vgpu-stp.md` around lines 266 - 268, The Test Environment
risk block currently lacks an approver signature; update the risk
acknowledgement paragraph (the "**Risk:** Only one NVIDIA A30 GPU node..." /
"**Mitigation:** None" block) to include a completed sign-off by replacing
"[Name/Date]" with the approver's full name and the approval date in YYYY-MM-DD
(or the project's standard date format), ensuring the "*Sign-off:*" line reads
e.g. "*Sign-off:* Alice Smith / 2026-04-06" so the document has a clear,
traceable approval for the Test Environment risk.

- **Mitigation:** None — no alternative GPU hardware or cluster is available; testing is fully dependent on this single node's availability.
- *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]

### **III. Test Scenarios & Traceability**
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about these:

  1. migrate vm?
  2. restart vm?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants