CloudStack Volume support with ONTAP storage by rajiv-jain-netapp · Pull Request #13053 · apache/cloudstack

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-04-22T02:58:39Z

Description

Co-authored-by: Sandeep Locharla sandeep.locharla@netapp.com
Co-authored-by: Piyush Srivastava piyush5@netapp.com
Co-authored-by: Surya Gupta suryag@netapp.com

This PR...

Supports cloudstack-volume usecases support for NFS3 and iSCSI protocols.
Support for cloudStack-volume create/delete/attach/detach/snapshot-create.
Instance create/delete/snapshot-create support
Snapshot-create would not support
1. memory snapshot
2. user input for quicing option during snapshot creation

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?

Testing Done:

VM create

Validate the respective CloudStack volume

Storage view for the cloudStack volumes

VM snapshot support

Storage view, post snapshot create

CloudStack UI list view for snapshot

CloudStack volume snapshot support

Storage view, post snapshot create

CloudStack UI list view for snapshot

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

… added EOF fixes

… added EOF fixes + correcting license header

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton

…POJOs" This reverts commit fe0f752.

…POJOs" This reverts commit 28faca1.

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs with cstack 28

* CSTACKEX-29 Cluster, SVM and Aggr Feign Client * CSTACKEX-29 Change the endpoint method name in feign client * CSTACKEX-29 Make the alignment proper * CSTACKEX-29 Added License Info * CSTACKEX-29 Resolve Review Comments * CSTACKEX-29 Remove Component Annotation from datastoredriverclass * CSTACKEX-29 Resolve Style check issues * CSTACKEX-29 Resolve ALL Style issues * CSTACKEX-29 Resolve Precommits Issues * CSTACKEX-29 Added Method comments and change the ontap response class name --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

* CSTACKEX-31 NAS and Job Feign Client and POJOs * CSTACKEX-31 Fixed Checks Issues * CSTACKEX-31 Resolve Review Comments * CSTACKEX-31 Resolve Review Comments * CSTACKEX-31 Resolve Review Comments * CSTACKEX-31 Added Aggr and size to volume model * CSTACKEX-31 Change the export policy endpoint path * CSTACKEX-31 Fixed check styles --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

* CSTACKEX-30 SAN Feign Client * CSTACKEX-30 Fixed check style issues * CSTACKEX-30 Fixed review comments --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

* CSTACKEX-7: ONTAP Primary storage pool --------- Co-authored-by: Locharla, Sandeep <Sandeep.Locharla@netapp.com>

CSTACKEX-34: Upgrade to framework classes design

* CSTACKEX-35 Create Async * CSTACKEX-35 Added Null and empty check * CSTACKEX-35 Resolved review comments * CSTACKEX-35 Removed Type Casting for logger --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

* CSTACKEX-1: Feign changes and fixes for getting storage pool creation to work * CSTACKEX-01: Create Primary Storage pool changes with working code * CSTACKEX-01: Addressed all review comments and updated some code * CSTACKEX-01: Made some changes to fix some errors seen during testing * CSTACKEX-01: Addressed additional comments --------- Co-authored-by: Locharla, Sandeep <Sandeep.Locharla@netapp.com>

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-06-29T06:45:35Z

@nvazquez @winterhazel could you please check if your comments have been addressed ?
please let me know if this PR is good to you.

The new changes look good to me, and the overall code as well. There's just a few comments that I think could still be addressed here.

#13053 (comment) - comment not matching the constant's value. It would be nice to confirm whether the constant's value is indeed the expected one and correct this comment if so. #13053 (comment) - not sure if I was able to express myself correctly on this one, could you have another look @piyush5netapp? I was thinking about removing the volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(volumeInfo.getId(), primaryDataStore) from there by setting the details (in-memory) inside the plugin's grantAccess method to prevent some extra database calls. #13053 (comment) - minor remark, no need to create a map here. #13053 (comment) - minor remark, no need to create a map here.

We have responded to all the comments,
Note: we are planning to raise another PR by EOD today, mostly for fixes and extensions on snapshot workflows

winterhazel · 2026-06-29T13:42:23Z

We have responded to all the comments

Thanks, the map-related ones make sense, so I resolved them. Also, I have submitted a reply to #13053 (comment) if you could have a look.

@winterhazel Correct me if this is what you are trying to suggest as per my understanding on this comment #13053 (comment) - We are doing volumeInfo.get_iScsiName() in VolumeServiceImpl.createManagedVolumeCopyTemplateAsync whose value is set during OntapPrimaryDatastoreDriver.grantAccess from db. Instead of setting details.put(PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET, managedStoreTarget) using that value, set the PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET in OntapPrimaryDatastoreDriver.grantAccess itself. This will save one db call happening in VolumeServiceImpl.createManagedVolumeCopyTemplateAsync right ?

Right, this is what I suggested initially.

If yes, I had 2 reasons of not pursuing that-
1. Since the details is Map<String,String> and MANAGED_STORE_TARGET and other keys is specific(used by) by core code instead of vendor, vendor need not to remember the key (Also having key as String type can be error prone by vendors).

2. Existing code 1323-1330  also set the details here instead of any storage vendor setting those in either createAsync or grantAccess.
My understanding was that the vendor should be responsible for updating the right data in volume fields like iscsi_name, path , pool_type etc instead of setting key,value in details map which can be used by orchestrator code.

Your points make sense from an architectural view, but we've got an exception here anyways in which the core will need to perform an extra step for all providers to set this detail due to how a single vendor works.

Alternatively, can we move grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore); to a line before Map<String, String> details = new HashMap<>(); and replace the current L1328 with L1346 then (also remove the current L1344-L1348)? This in-memory details is not used by any provider, only for the final CopyCommand. This way, we do not have to perform this extra step.

piyush5netapp · 2026-06-30T06:01:32Z

We have responded to all the comments

Thanks, the map-related ones make sense, so I resolved them. Also, I have submitted a reply to #13053 (comment) if you could have a look.

@winterhazel Correct me if this is what you are trying to suggest as per my understanding on this comment #13053 (comment) - We are doing volumeInfo.get_iScsiName() in VolumeServiceImpl.createManagedVolumeCopyTemplateAsync whose value is set during OntapPrimaryDatastoreDriver.grantAccess from db. Instead of setting details.put(PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET, managedStoreTarget) using that value, set the PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET in OntapPrimaryDatastoreDriver.grantAccess itself. This will save one db call happening in VolumeServiceImpl.createManagedVolumeCopyTemplateAsync right ?

Right, this is what I suggested initially.
If yes, I had 2 reasons of not pursuing that-
1. Since the details is Map<String,String> and MANAGED_STORE_TARGET and other keys is specific(used by) by core code instead of vendor, vendor need not to remember the key (Also having key as String type can be error prone by vendors).

2. Existing code 1323-1330  also set the details here instead of any storage vendor setting those in either createAsync or grantAccess.
My understanding was that the vendor should be responsible for updating the right data in volume fields like iscsi_name, path , pool_type etc instead of setting key,value in details map which can be used by orchestrator code.
Your points make sense from an architectural view, but we've got an exception here anyways in which the core will need to perform an extra step for all providers to set this detail due to how a single vendor works.

Alternatively, can we move grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore); to a line before Map<String, String> details = new HashMap<>(); and replace the current L1328 with L1346 then (also remove the current L1344-L1348)? This in-memory details is not used by any provider, only for the final CopyCommand. This way, we do not have to perform this extra step.

@winterhazel Good suggestion. I will try this out today but we need sometime to test our workflows with this change. Also we are raising a subsequent PR most probably today/tomorrow . If you don't have concern, can I inlcude this change in that PR buying the time to test workflows till that.

This is what you are suggesting.
-----> grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore);
Map<String, String> details = new HashMap<>();
....
-----> String managedStoreTarget = ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull(volumeInfo.get_iScsiName(), volumeInfo.getUuid());
...
primaryDataStore.setDetails(details);
try {
motionSrv.copyAsync(srcTemplateInfo, destTemplateInfo, destHost, caller);
....

…loudstack and ontap supported scenarios

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 47 out of 47 changed files in this pull request and generated 8 comments.

winterhazel · 2026-07-01T04:36:35Z

This is what you are suggesting. -----> grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore); Map<String, String> details = new HashMap<>(); .... -----> String managedStoreTarget = ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull(volumeInfo.get_iScsiName(), volumeInfo.getUuid()); ... primaryDataStore.setDetails(details); try { motionSrv.copyAsync(srcTemplateInfo, destTemplateInfo, destHost, caller); ....

Yes, exactly.

I will try this out today but we need sometime to test our workflows with this change. Also we are raising a subsequent PR most probably today/tomorrow . If you don't have concern, can I inlcude this change in that PR buying the time to test workflows till that.

Ok, it is not a critical concern, so fine for me. Please test whether things still work as expected with the refactor and include it in the subsequent PR.

@weizhouapache everything ok from my side on this one.

winterhazel · 2026-07-01T19:44:34Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-07-01T19:46:04Z

@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-07-01T20:16:33Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 18433

winterhazel · 2026-07-01T22:18:07Z

@rajiv-jain-netapp @piyush5netapp there is a test failure:

Error:  Failures: 
Error:    OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.testInitialize_clusterNotKVM:365 expected: <true> but was: <false>

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-07-02T03:10:55Z

@rajiv-jain-netapp @piyush5netapp there is a test failure:

Error:  Failures: 
Error:    OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.testInitialize_clusterNotKVM:365 expected: <true> but was: <false>

checking, and will fix it in next 1 hour

…ilot comments fixes.

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-07-02T04:33:50Z

@rajiv-jain-netapp @piyush5netapp there is a test failure:
Error:  Failures: 
Error:    OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.testInitialize_clusterNotKVM:365 expected: <true> but was: <false>
checking, and will fix it in next 1 hour

Fixed, please try now

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 47 out of 47 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

+          params['details[0].storageIP'] = values.ontapIP
+          params['details[0].username'] = values.ontapUsername
+          params['details[0].password'] = btoa(values.ontapPassword)
+          params['details[0].svmName'] = values.ontapSvmName
+          params['details[0].protocol'] = values.protocol
+          values.managed = true
+          url = this.ontapURL(values.ontapIP)


+        params['details[0].storageIP'] = this.prefillContent.ontapIP
+        params['details[0].username'] = this.prefillContent.ontapUsername
+        params['details[0].password'] = btoa(this.prefillContent.ontapPassword)
+        params['details[0].svmName'] = this.prefillContent.ontapSvmName
+        params['details[0].protocol'] = this.prefillContent.primaryStorageProtocol


+        try {
+            AccessGroup accessGroupRequest = new AccessGroup();
+            accessGroupRequest.setHostsToConnect(hostsToConnect);
+            accessGroupRequest.setScope(scope);
+            accessGroupRequest.setStoragePoolId(storagePool.getId());
+            strategy.createAccessGroup(accessGroupRequest);


        for (HostVO host : hosts) {
            String hostStorageIp = host.getStorageIpAddress();
            String ip = (hostStorageIp != null && !hostStorageIp.isEmpty())
                    ? hostStorageIp
                    : host.getPrivateIpAddress();
-            String ipToUse = ip + "/31";
+            String ipToUse = ip + "/32";
            ExportRule.ExportClient exportClient = new ExportRule.ExportClient();
            exportClient.setMatch(ipToUse);
            exportClients.add(exportClient);


+        }catch (Exception e) {
+            logger.error("createCloudStackVolume: error occured " + e);
+            throw new CloudRuntimeException(e);
+        }


+        } catch (Exception e) {
+            logger.error("createVolumeOnKVMHost: Exception sending CreateObjectCommand", e);
+            return new Answer(null, false, e.toString());
+        }


winterhazel · 2026-07-02T13:22:55Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-07-02T13:24:04Z

@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-07-02T14:10:35Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18438

DaanHoogland · 2026-07-02T18:41:34Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-07-02T18:42:03Z

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2026-07-03T09:55:49Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-16470)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 52008 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr13053-t16470-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 152 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

DaanHoogland · 2026-07-03T15:00:23Z

@weizhouapache @winterhazel , good to merge?

piyush5netapp · 2026-07-05T12:56:18Z

This is what you are suggesting. -----> grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore); Map<String, String> details = new HashMap<>(); .... -----> String managedStoreTarget = ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull(volumeInfo.get_iScsiName(), volumeInfo.getUuid()); ... primaryDataStore.setDetails(details); try { motionSrv.copyAsync(srcTemplateInfo, destTemplateInfo, destHost, caller); ....

Yes, exactly.

@winterhazel I tried this but instance creation failed . This is because Netapp ONTAP updates/set iScsiName in grantAccess, so we need to refresh the volumeInfo object again to take latest data here. Its currently taking old data. Does Moving grantAcess above line "ManagedCreateBaseImageContext context = new ManagedCreateBaseImageContext<>(null, volumeInfo, primaryDataStore, srcTemplateInfo, future);" will have any side-effect for any vendor ?

winterhazel · 2026-07-05T13:46:17Z

@winterhazel I tried this but instance creation failed . This is because Netapp ONTAP updates/set iScsiName in grantAccess, so we need to refresh the volumeInfo object again to take latest data here. Its currently taking old data. Does Moving grantAcess above line "ManagedCreateBaseImageContext context = new ManagedCreateBaseImageContext<>(null, volumeInfo, primaryDataStore, srcTemplateInfo, future);" will have any side-effect for any vendor ?

@piyush5netapp I missed this crucial detail :(

Moving grantAcess to above ManagedCreateBaseImageContext context = new ManagedCreateBaseImageContext<>(null, volumeInfo, primaryDataStore, srcTemplateInfo, future); should not have any side effects, but we will still need to refresh the volumeInfo again anyways to get the updated iScsiName.

I think we can leave this code the way it is organized now then. I would just add a check to perform this extra refresh only if the ONTAP plugin is being used, like:

...
grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore);

if (DataStoreProvider.ONTAP_PLUGIN_NAME.equals(primaryDataStore.getStorageProviderName())) {
    // For Netapp ONTAP iscsiName or Lun path  is available only after grantAccess
    volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(volumeInfo.getId(), primaryDataStore);
    String managedStoreTarget = ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull(volumeInfo.get_iScsiName(), volumeInfo.getUuid());
    details.put(PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET, managedStoreTarget);
    primaryDataStore.setDetails(details);
}

try {
    motionSrv.copyAsync(srcTemplateInfo, destTemplateInfo, destHost, caller);
...

@weizhouapache @winterhazel , good to merge?

@DaanHoogland I think so. Let's just wait for @piyush5netapp to check the suggestion above.

piyush5netapp · 2026-07-05T14:16:40Z

@winterhazel I tried this but instance creation failed . This is because Netapp ONTAP updates/set iScsiName in grantAccess, so we need to refresh the volumeInfo object again to take latest data here. Its currently taking old data. Does Moving grantAcess above line "ManagedCreateBaseImageContext context = new ManagedCreateBaseImageContext<>(null, volumeInfo, primaryDataStore, srcTemplateInfo, future);" will have any side-effect for any vendor ?

@piyush5netapp I missed this crucial detail :(

Moving grantAcess to above ManagedCreateBaseImageContext context = new ManagedCreateBaseImageContext<>(null, volumeInfo, primaryDataStore, srcTemplateInfo, future); should not have any side effects, but we will still need to refresh the volumeInfo again anyways to get the updated iScsiName.

I think we can leave this code the way it is organized now then. I would just add a check to perform this extra refresh only if the ONTAP plugin is being used, like:
...
grantAccess(volumeInfo, destHost, primaryDataStore);

if (DataStoreProvider.ONTAP_PLUGIN_NAME.equals(primaryDataStore.getStorageProviderName())) {
    // For Netapp ONTAP iscsiName or Lun path  is available only after grantAccess
    volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(volumeInfo.getId(), primaryDataStore);
    String managedStoreTarget = ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull(volumeInfo.get_iScsiName(), volumeInfo.getUuid());
    details.put(PrimaryDataStore.MANAGED_STORE_TARGET, managedStoreTarget);
    primaryDataStore.setDetails(details);
}

try {
    motionSrv.copyAsync(srcTemplateInfo, destTemplateInfo, destHost, caller);
...
@weizhouapache @winterhazel , good to merge?

@DaanHoogland I think so. Let's just wait for @piyush5netapp to check the suggestion above.

@winterhazel I think the plugin check will work . I will do the change in subsequent PR. Let's not hold this PR for this suggestion to test as its not a critical concern. In the meantime, I have started making change.

winterhazel · 2026-07-05T14:25:38Z

@winterhazel I think the plugin check will work . I will do the change in subsequent PR. Let's not hold this PR for this suggestion to test as its not a critical concern. In the meantime, I have started making change.

@piyush5netapp ok, thanks.

Jain, Rajiv and others added 30 commits October 3, 2025 14:02

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton

4c8c8d9

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton - added license string

bf838b3

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton - added license string +…

b82fb40

… added EOF fixes

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton - added license string +…

1199d55

… added EOF fixes + correcting license header

Merge pull request #1 from NetApp/feature-CSTACKEX-24

ebc3f00

Initial primary storage pool plugin skeleton

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs

28faca1

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs

fe0f752

Revert "Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired …

35f1011

…POJOs" This reverts commit fe0f752.

Revert "Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired …

a03a2c4

…POJOs" This reverts commit 28faca1.

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs

2e0efe8

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs

a96eb9e

CSTACKEX-28: added copyright comment in the logger configuration

0f09c5f

CSTACKEX-28: added newline in the end of the file

2cc4b0c

CSTACKEX-28 - incorporated review comments

033c23d

Merge pull request #4 from NetApp/feature/CSTACKEX-28

2822946

Feignconfiguration and volume feignClient along with desired POJOs with cstack 28

CSTACKEX-30 SAN Feign Client (#8)

a492797

* CSTACKEX-30 SAN Feign Client * CSTACKEX-30 Fixed check style issues * CSTACKEX-30 Fixed review comments --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

CSTACKEX-7: ONTAP Primary storage pool (#9)

25353c2

* CSTACKEX-7: ONTAP Primary storage pool --------- Co-authored-by: Locharla, Sandeep <Sandeep.Locharla@netapp.com>

CSTACKEX-34: Upgrade to framework classes design

973f5e2

CSTACKEX-34: incorporating the review comments

686a892

CSTACKEX-34: transient changes to the review comments

edfcdde

CSTACKEX-34: Unable to get checkstyle pass hence fixing this as well

73eb9f5

CSTACKEX-34: further review comments incorporations

465fffe

CSTACKEX-34: addressing checkstyle issues

3d6bd91

CSTACKEX-34: fix checksyle issues

5815ebd

Merge pull request #13 from NetApp/feature/CSTACKEX-34

618f957

CSTACKEX-34: Upgrade to framework classes design

CSTACKEX-35 Create Async (#14)

6c4b24e

* CSTACKEX-35 Create Async * CSTACKEX-35 Added Null and empty check * CSTACKEX-35 Resolved review comments * CSTACKEX-35 Removed Type Casting for logger --------- Co-authored-by: Gupta, Surya <Surya.Gupta@netapp.com>

Merge branch 'apache:main' into main

54ddfa9

CSTACKEX-209: updating allowed snapshot name size to 255 as per the c…

5d4c773

…loudstack and ontap supported scenarios

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 30, 2026 07:54

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rajiv-jain-netapp June 30, 2026 07:55 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

CSTACKEX-209: addressing copilot comments

bc8e77d

CSTACKEX-209: fixing junit which got introduced as part of recent cop…

5ce767f

…ilot comments fixes.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 2, 2026 04:32

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rajiv-jain-netapp July 2, 2026 04:33 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jul 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

rajiv-jain-netapp commented Apr 22, 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?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

piyush5netapp commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

DaanHoogland commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

DaanHoogland commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

piyush5netapp commented Jul 5, 2026

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 5, 2026

Uh oh!

piyush5netapp commented Jul 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

winterhazel commented Jul 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp commented Apr 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

winterhazel commented Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

piyush5netapp commented Jul 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading