Skip to content

Conversation

@AlexCK-STFC
Copy link
Member

It's just been combined into the existing VCPUs field + more aliases adding

Tested on dev: Works. No longer do hypervisors show 0 vCPUs

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 1, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (76d7989) to head (fae8fae).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #29   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          111       111           
  Lines         4111      4147   +36     
=========================================
+ Hits          4111      4147   +36     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@AlexCK-STFC AlexCK-STFC marked this pull request as draft October 1, 2025 10:55
@AlexCK-STFC
Copy link
Member Author

Identified an inconsistency, debugging, draft for now

It's just been combined into the existing VCPUs field + more aliases adding
Addition of pcpus to vcpus is backwards-compatibile
@AlexCK-STFC AlexCK-STFC marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2025 12:12
@AlexCK-STFC
Copy link
Member Author

Fixed: small typo from vscode autocomplete autocompleting the wrong variable

@AlexCK-STFC AlexCK-STFC enabled auto-merge October 1, 2025 12:20
Comment on lines +117 to +121
HypervisorProperties.VCPUS: lambda a: a.usage.vcpus + a.usage.pcpus,
HypervisorProperties.VCPUS_AVAIL: lambda a: a.usage.vcpus_avail
+ a.usage.pcpus_avail,
HypervisorProperties.VCPUS_USED: lambda a: a.usage.vcpus_used
+ a.usage.pcpus_used,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't know if we should be combining PCPU and VCPU like this since they are two different resources in openstack, its only our specific use case where we only use PCPUs that we run into this issue. I'd suggest return separate fields for PCPU and VCPU and let the users of the library decided how to handle them

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants