[IUO] Add IUO child STP for dual-stream#108
Open
OhadRevah wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedAn error occurred during the review process. Please try again later. ✨ 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 |
|
Clean rebase detected — no code changes compared to previous head ( |
|
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: 7
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Around line 199-207: The Test Environment subsection in iuo.md is missing
explicit fields required by STP Section II.3; update the IUO-specific Test
Environment block to explicitly list OCP/OpenShift versions (e.g., OCP version
and OpenShift Virtualization version), storage class, and platform (or mark N/A
where not applicable). Locate the "Cluster Topology" and "Special
Configurations" entries in iuo.md and add a "Test Environment" subsection under
them containing explicit keys: OCP Version, OpenShift Virtualization Version,
Storage Class, Platform, and any platform-specific notes so all fields are
filled or set to N/A per the coding guidelines.
- Around line 56-64: The NFR section (I.1 "Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)")
is missing explicit coverage for Observability and Documentation; update the NFR
matrix under that heading to explicitly list Observability and Documentation (or
state explicit inheritance from the parent STP per category), ensuring the
section includes bullets for Monitoring, Observability, UI, Documentation,
Performance, Security, and Scalability so the matrix is complete and auditable
(edit the "Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)" block and reference I.1).
- Around line 262-263: The Test Scenario in Section III currently reads like a
regression execution plan ("Run all existing IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests...");
update that line to describe the specific IUO behavior being validated on RHCOS
10.2 (e.g., "Validate IUO installation and basic cluster operations on RHCOS
10.2 nodes, including installer compatibility, node provisioning, and
CI-critical workload scheduling/boot behavior"), and move any mention of running
full regression suites back to Section II.2 (Test Strategy) instead; locate and
edit the bullet starting "*Test Scenario:*" in the Section III content to
reflect the focused feature validation rather than regression-suite execution.
- Line 67: The document contains unresolved placeholders "[Name/Date]" and an
insufficient limitation statement; replace every "[Name/Date]" placeholder with
the actual reviewer name and date, and change the limitation line from "None —
reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this
release." to the required reviewed-with format e.g. "None — reviewed and
confirmed with <Reviewer Name>/<YYYY-MM-DD>" and add the explicit
evidence/sign-off metadata block (reviewer, role, date, and short confirmation
statement) where other STPs include it; ensure the same fixes are applied to the
other occurrences referenced (the other two instances of the placeholder).
- Around line 23-27: Rewrite the "Feature Overview" paragraph (the one beginning
"This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support...") to
be user-outcome focused: remove internal implementation words like "operators",
"must-gather", and "metric plumbing" and instead state what cluster admins and
VM operators can verify (e.g., that VMs and CNV functionality operate on RHCOS
10.2, golden images are available and bootable, node placement policies are
honored in mixed-version clusters, observability shows expected VM and migration
metrics, and cross-version live migrations succeed and report accurate metrics).
Keep detailed implementation and collection mechanisms (must-gather internals,
plumbing details) for the test details section.
- Around line 39-43: Replace internal component/CRD names (HCO, SSP,
DataImportCrons) in the user-facing acceptance and goal statements with
observable behavior descriptions: e.g., change "CNV operators (HCO, SSP) deploy
and report ready" to "cluster virtualization components deploy and report ready
on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes", and replace "Golden images (boot sources via
DataImportCrons) are available" with "prebuilt VM boot images are available and
functional on RHCOS 10.2"; keep the original internal names only in
implementation notes. Also update the other occurrences referenced (the same
user-facing sections around the other mentions) to follow this pattern and
ensure no API/CRD/internal component names appear in scope or acceptance text.
- Around line 63-64: The UI NFR justification "UI: N/A — no IUO-specific UI
changes" is insufficient; replace that line in iuo.md with a PM/UX-backed
rationale or explicit test-scope justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and
confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted; UI/Usability testing waived with PM
sign-off: <name/date>" or a short customer-value rationale), and make the same
replacement for the similar occurrence around lines 170-172 so both instances
reference PM/UX approval or provide a concrete usability rationale explaining
why UI testing is not required.
🪄 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: e0e16967-68b8-48b5-ac75-bc5ca0bfb353
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Ohad <orevah@redhat.com>
OhadRevah
force-pushed
the
stp/iuo-dual-stream-rhcos
branch
from
f22dd08 to
13d89e3
Compare
openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-2
added
needs-rebase
and removed
changes-requested-coderabbitai[bot]
labels
|
Clean rebase detected — no code changes compared to previous head ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (6)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md (6)
138-138:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL: Replace placeholder with actual sign-off.
The Test Limitations item has an unresolved
[Name/Date]placeholder. Per STP governance, all sign-offs must be explicit before approval.As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🔧 Required fix
Replace
[Name/Date]with actual reviewer name and date, e.g.,Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 138, Replace the placeholder sign-off in the Test Limitations line that currently reads "*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit reviewer name and date (e.g., "Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX"), ensuring the Test Limitations section contains a concrete sign-off instead of the unresolved placeholder.
172-172:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Usability Testing justification requires PM/UX sign-off.
Same issue as the UI NFR section: the justification lacks PM/UX confirmation. If UI/Usability testing is truly not needed for IUO on dual-stream, provide PM/UX sign-off or customer-value rationale.
As per coding guidelines: "STP UI NFR: 'no UI changes introduced' does not justify dismissing UI testing. If UI testing is not needed, reasoning must come from PM/UX on customer value, not from implementation absence."
🔧 Proposed fix
- - *Details:* N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO; existing console functionality is unchanged. + - *Details:* N/A — PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted by dual-stream RHCOS support; existing console functionality unchanged (*Sign-off:* [PM/UX Name/Date]).🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 172, Update the IUO justification line that currently states "Details: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys..." by adding an explicit PM/UX sign-off or a customer-value rationale from PM/UX; specifically, amend the IUO section (the "IUO" heading and the sentence referencing "no UI changes introduced") to include either a named PM/UX approver and date or a concise customer-value statement from PM/UX explaining why UI/usability testing is unnecessary for dual-stream RHCOS, so the STP UI NFR requirement is satisfied.
132-132:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL: Replace placeholder with actual PM/Lead sign-off.
The Out of Scope item has an unresolved
[Name/Date]placeholder. Per STP governance, all sign-offs must be explicit before approval.As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🔧 Required fix
Replace
[Name/Date]with actual PM or lead name and date, e.g.,Martin Tessun / 2026-05-XX.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 132, Replace the Out of Scope placeholder "*PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit PM or lead sign-off including full name and an ISO-style date (e.g., "Martin Tessun / 2026-05-21"); update the text where the placeholder appears so the STP contains a concrete sign-off and date instead of "[Name/Date]".
68-68:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Known Limitations statement missing required name/date sign-off format.
The "None" statement must include reviewer name and date: "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]".
As per coding guidelines: "STP Section I.2 Known Limitations... If no limitations exist, state 'None — reviewed and confirmed with [Name/Date]'."
🔧 Proposed fix
-None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release. +None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 68, Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry in iuo.md so the "None" statement follows the required sign-off format; replace the current line "None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release." with "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]" using the actual reviewer name and ISO date to satisfy the Known Limitations sign-off requirement.
63-64:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: UI NFR justification requires PM/UX sign-off, not implementation-absence reasoning.
The UI NFR states "no new user journeys or UI elements" but lacks PM/UX confirmation. Per guidelines, "no UI changes" is insufficient—you must provide PM/UX backing or customer-value rationale explaining why UI testing is not needed.
As per coding guidelines: "STP UI NFR: 'no UI changes introduced' does not justify dismissing UI testing. If UI testing is not needed, reasoning must come from PM/UX on customer value, not from implementation absence."
🔧 Proposed fix
- - UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO; existing console functionality is unchanged + - UI: N/A — PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no IUO user journeys impacted by dual-stream RHCOS support; existing console functionality unchanged (*Sign-off:* [PM/UX Name/Date])🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 63 - 64, The "UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys or UI elements for IUO" line in iuo.md lacks PM/UX sign-off; update the UI NFR by obtaining explicit PM/UX approval or a customer-value rationale and record it inline: replace or append to the existing UI NFR sentence with a short statement that includes the PM/UX approver's name (or role), date, and brief justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no UI impact for customers, signed off by <name/role> on <date>"), and do the same for the Documentation NFR if applicable so reviewers can verify the validation without assuming implementation absence.
23-27: 🧹 Nitpick | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winMEDIUM: Reframe Feature Overview from test-scope to feature capability.
The overview paragraph uses test-scope language ("validating that...") rather than describing what the feature enables. For a child STP, the overview should still describe user-facing capabilities within the SIG's scope, not test objectives.
As per coding guidelines: "Feature Overview in STPs must... describe what the feature does from the user's perspective... contain no implementation details."
♻️ Proposed fix
-This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support: validating that -OpenShift Virtualization deploys and functions correctly on RHCOS 10.2, golden images are available and bootable, diagnostic data collection works on RHCOS 10.2 nodes, -node placement policies are honored in mixed-version clusters, observability metrics work -as expected, and migration metrics are accurately reported during cross-version live migration. +This STP covers the IUO-specific aspects of dual-stream RHCOS support. OpenShift Virtualization +deploys and operates on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes, golden images are available for VM creation, +diagnostic data collection captures complete information from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, node placement +policies control VM scheduling on mixed-version clusters, and migration metrics accurately report +cross-version live migration performance.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 23 - 27, The overview paragraph in iuo.md is written as a test objective rather than a user-facing feature description; rewrite the first paragraph to describe the feature capability (what dual-stream RHCOS support enables for users of OpenShift Virtualization) without implementation or test language, e.g., state that dual-stream support allows running OpenShift Virtualization workloads across RHCOS 9 and 10 nodes with validated bootable golden images, consistent node placement, functioning diagnostics, and accurate cross-version migration metrics; update the paragraph text in the file's overview section accordingly to remove phrases like "validating that" or "diagnostic data collection works" and replace them with capability-focused statements.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Around line 234-261: The Risks section currently lists Test Coverage, Test
Environment, and Resource Constraints; add the missing three standard
categories—Timeline/Schedule, Untestable Aspects, and Dependencies—directly
after the Resource Constraints block: for Timeline/Schedule either state "No
timeline risks identified for TP phase; GA automation timeline tracked
separately." or describe any schedule risk and mitigation; for Untestable
Aspects either state "All IUO requirements for dual-stream are testable via
existing test frameworks and tooling." or list what cannot be tested and why
plus mitigation; for Dependencies reference the existing Test Environment
dependency on QE DevOps dual-stream cluster tooling and list any other external
dependencies or state "No other external dependencies identified." Ensure the
new headings match the style of the existing items (bold heading and bullet list
with Risk/Mitigation/Notes) so reviewers can locate them alongside Test
Coverage, Test Environment, and Resource Constraints.
- Line 19: Update the "Golden images" terminology line to remove internal
implementation references (SSP operator, DataImportCrons) and instead describe
the user-facing concept; locate the line containing the "Golden images:"
definition and replace the current text with a user-centric phrase such as
"Pre-configured VM boot sources that provide ready-to-use operating system
images for creating VMs" so the STP Document Conventions only define
feature-specific, user-facing terms.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Line 138: Replace the placeholder sign-off in the Test Limitations line that
currently reads "*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" with an explicit reviewer name and
date (e.g., "Ohad Revah / 2026-05-XX"), ensuring the Test Limitations section
contains a concrete sign-off instead of the unresolved placeholder.
- Line 172: Update the IUO justification line that currently states "Details:
N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new user journeys..." by adding an
explicit PM/UX sign-off or a customer-value rationale from PM/UX; specifically,
amend the IUO section (the "IUO" heading and the sentence referencing "no UI
changes introduced") to include either a named PM/UX approver and date or a
concise customer-value statement from PM/UX explaining why UI/usability testing
is unnecessary for dual-stream RHCOS, so the STP UI NFR requirement is
satisfied.
- Line 132: Replace the Out of Scope placeholder "*PM/Lead Agreement:*
[Name/Date]" with an explicit PM or lead sign-off including full name and an
ISO-style date (e.g., "Martin Tessun / 2026-05-21"); update the text where the
placeholder appears so the STP contains a concrete sign-off and date instead of
"[Name/Date]".
- Line 68: Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry in iuo.md so the
"None" statement follows the required sign-off format; replace the current line
"None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply
for this release." with "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer
Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]" using the actual reviewer name and ISO date to satisfy the
Known Limitations sign-off requirement.
- Around line 63-64: The "UI: N/A — dual-stream RHCOS support introduces no new
user journeys or UI elements for IUO" line in iuo.md lacks PM/UX sign-off;
update the UI NFR by obtaining explicit PM/UX approval or a customer-value
rationale and record it inline: replace or append to the existing UI NFR
sentence with a short statement that includes the PM/UX approver's name (or
role), date, and brief justification (e.g., "PM/UX reviewed and confirmed no UI
impact for customers, signed off by <name/role> on <date>"), and do the same for
the Documentation NFR if applicable so reviewers can verify the validation
without assuming implementation absence.
- Around line 23-27: The overview paragraph in iuo.md is written as a test
objective rather than a user-facing feature description; rewrite the first
paragraph to describe the feature capability (what dual-stream RHCOS support
enables for users of OpenShift Virtualization) without implementation or test
language, e.g., state that dual-stream support allows running OpenShift
Virtualization workloads across RHCOS 9 and 10 nodes with validated bootable
golden images, consistent node placement, functioning diagnostics, and accurate
cross-version migration metrics; update the paragraph text in the file's
overview section accordingly to remove phrases like "validating that" or
"diagnostic data collection works" and replace them with capability-focused
statements.
🪄 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: f9166f21-0d57-4eab-9d35-efc636fbdbea
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
OhadRevah
force-pushed
the
stp/iuo-dual-stream-rhcos
branch
from
f244ef3 to
fedbad1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
♻️ Duplicate comments (4)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md (4)
134-134:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Unresolved placeholder blocks STP approval.
Line 134 contains "[Name/Date]" placeholder in the Sign-off field for the "No automation requirement for Tech Preview" test limitation.
As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 134, Replace the unresolved "[Name/Date]" placeholder in the Sign-off field for the "No automation requirement for Tech Preview" test limitation with a real approver name and date (or a link to the Jira/approval artifact) so the STP can be approved; update the Sign-off entry in iuo.md's "Sign-off:" field to include the approver's full name, ISO date, and optionally a Jira/PR reference to evidence the approval.
128-128:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Unresolved placeholder blocks STP approval.
Line 128 contains "[Name/Date]" placeholder in the PM/Lead Agreement field for the "Operator installation on RHCOS 10.2 from scratch" out-of-scope item.
As per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence: sign-offs, Jira links, dates. No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 128, Replace the unresolved placeholder in the PM/Lead Agreement field ("*PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]") with an actual sign-off entry: add the PM/Lead full name and the approval date (or a Jira sign-off link if required) to the "Operator installation on RHCOS 10.2 from scratch" out-of-scope item; if sign-off is pending, change the placeholder to a clear status like "Pending sign-off — assign to: <Name> (Jira-XXXX)" so the STP no longer contains empty placeholders and includes traceable evidence.
64-64:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Known Limitations statement missing required sign-off format.
Line 64 states "None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release." but lacks the required reviewer name and date format.
As per coding guidelines: "STP Section I.2 Known Limitations must each have a sign-off:
*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]. If no limitations exist, state 'None — reviewed and confirmed with [Name/Date]'."♻️ Proposed fix
-None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release. +None — reviewed and confirmed with [Reviewer Name]/[YYYY-MM-DD]🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 64, Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry (the line currently reading "None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature limitations apply for this release.") to include the required sign-off format; replace or append that sentence with "None — reviewed and confirmed with [Name/Date]. *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" (use the actual reviewer name and date) so the Known Limitations statement conforms to the required `*Sign-off:* [Name/Date]` format.
19-19:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: Internal implementation details remain in Document Conventions.
Line 19 still defines "Golden images" using internal component and CRD names ("SSP operator via DataImportCrons"), despite a past review comment requesting removal of these details. Document Conventions must be user-facing.
As per coding guidelines: "STP Document Conventions must define only feature-specific terms, not standard ones" and "STPs must describe what users experience, not how the system works internally. No API field names, CRD names, internal component references, or implementation mechanisms."
♻️ Proposed fix
-- **Golden images:** Pre-configured VM boot sources managed by the SSP operator via DataImportCrons. +- **Golden images:** Pre-configured VM boot sources that provide ready-to-use operating system images for creating VMs.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 19, The Document Conventions entry for "Golden images" currently includes internal names ("SSP operator", "DataImportCrons"); remove those implementation details and replace the line so it is user-facing only — e.g., "Golden images: Pre-configured VM boot sources provided and managed by the platform" — ensuring the term "Golden images" remains defined but contains no CRD, operator, API field, or implementation references.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Duplicate comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Line 134: Replace the unresolved "[Name/Date]" placeholder in the Sign-off
field for the "No automation requirement for Tech Preview" test limitation with
a real approver name and date (or a link to the Jira/approval artifact) so the
STP can be approved; update the Sign-off entry in iuo.md's "Sign-off:" field to
include the approver's full name, ISO date, and optionally a Jira/PR reference
to evidence the approval.
- Line 128: Replace the unresolved placeholder in the PM/Lead Agreement field
("*PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date]") with an actual sign-off entry: add the
PM/Lead full name and the approval date (or a Jira sign-off link if required) to
the "Operator installation on RHCOS 10.2 from scratch" out-of-scope item; if
sign-off is pending, change the placeholder to a clear status like "Pending
sign-off — assign to: <Name> (Jira-XXXX)" so the STP no longer contains empty
placeholders and includes traceable evidence.
- Line 64: Update the STP Section I.2 Known Limitations entry (the line
currently reading "None — reviewed and confirmed that no IUO-specific feature
limitations apply for this release.") to include the required sign-off format;
replace or append that sentence with "None — reviewed and confirmed with
[Name/Date]. *Sign-off:* [Name/Date]" (use the actual reviewer name and date) so
the Known Limitations statement conforms to the required `*Sign-off:*
[Name/Date]` format.
- Line 19: The Document Conventions entry for "Golden images" currently includes
internal names ("SSP operator", "DataImportCrons"); remove those implementation
details and replace the line so it is user-facing only — e.g., "Golden images:
Pre-configured VM boot sources provided and managed by the platform" — ensuring
the term "Golden images" remains defined but contains no CRD, operator, API
field, or implementation references.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 12ba85e6-2d9e-4e6e-95a6-bd6e16c1f359
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
Contributor
|
/lgtm |
OhadRevah
force-pushed
the
stp/iuo-dual-stream-rhcos
branch
from
fedbad1 to
641bd25
Compare
|
Clean rebase detected — no code changes compared to previous head ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md (3)
128-128: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL:
[Name/Date]placeholder still present.Replace with actual reviewer name and date before approval. This blocks approval per coding guidelines: "Every claim in STPs needs evidence… No empty placeholders in approved STPs."
- - *PM/Lead Agreement:* [Name/Date] + - *PM/Lead Agreement:* Martin Tessun / 2026-05-13🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 128, The PM/Lead Agreement entry still contains the `[Name/Date]` placeholder, so update the agreement field in the STP with the actual reviewer name and date before approval. Locate the `PM/Lead Agreement` line in the document and replace the placeholder with the real sign-off details, ensuring no empty placeholders remain in the final STP.Source: Coding guidelines
134-134: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔴 Critical | ⚡ Quick winCRITICAL:
[Name/Date]placeholder still present.Same as line 128 — replace with actual sign-off before approval.
- - *Sign-off:* [Name/Date] + - *Sign-off:* Martin Tessun / 2026-05-13🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 134, The sign-off placeholder is still left in the document and needs to be replaced before approval. Update the sign-off entry in this section to use the actual signer and date instead of the `[Name/Date]` placeholder, keeping the surrounding sign-off format consistent with the rest of the file.Source: Coding guidelines
77-77: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winHIGH: CRD name "DataImportCrons" leaked into Technology Challenges.
Per guidelines, even design review sections should avoid internal component/CRD names. Use "golden image provisioning" or "pre-configured boot source provisioning."
- - Golden image provisioning (DataImportCrons) depends on storage and CDI behavior that may + - Golden image provisioning depends on storage and CDI behavior that may🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 77, The Technology Challenges section currently leaks the internal CRD name DataImportCrons, so update the wording in the relevant iuo.md content to describe the capability generically instead of naming the CRD. Replace the reference in the golden image provisioning discussion with a product-facing term such as golden image provisioning or pre-configured boot source provisioning, and keep the rest of the sentence structure intact.Source: Coding guidelines
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Line 45: Update the acceptance criteria in the IUO document so it describes
the observable deployment outcome rather than test execution; in the referenced
section of the dual-stream cluster RHCOS 9/RHCOS 10 IUO, replace the Tier 1/Tier
2 pass wording with a user-focused statement tied to OpenShift Virtualization
readiness and functional components on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes.
- Around line 104-105: The testing goal text in the RHCOS 10.2 cluster admin
scenario uses the internal tool name must-gather, which should be replaced with
user-facing diagnostic wording. Update the affected user story in this document
to use a generic support/diagnostic term instead of must-gather, keeping the
intent of collecting complete node data for investigation.
- Line 78: The design text uses the internal acronym “CDI”, which should be
replaced with user-facing storage/data import terminology or spelled out on
first use. Update the wording in the affected section of the document to avoid
the standalone acronym and make the reference clear to readers, keeping the same
meaning while using the full component name or a descriptive phrase.
- Around line 102-103: The user story text in the IUO section describes test
execution rather than the actual user benefit. Update the wording in the
affected story so it states the cluster-admin outcome enabled by successful Tier
1 and Tier 2 tests on the RHCOS 10.2-only cluster, and keep the reference
aligned with the existing IUO Tier 1/Tier 2 wording in the dual-stream cluster
document.
- Line 41: The requirement text uses the internal branding “CNV” in a
user-facing sentence; update the wording in the document to use “OpenShift
Virtualization” or remove the prefix so it just says “migration metrics,” and
keep the rest of the requirement unchanged.
- Around line 114-115: The second testing goal still uses the internal tool name
“must-gather,” so update the wording in the dual-stream cluster iuo.md entry to
match the same user-facing terminology used earlier in the document. Locate the
affected testing-goal text in the dual-stream cluster section and replace the
internal name consistently, keeping the rest of the RHCOS 9.8/RHCOS 10.2
coverage statement unchanged.
- Line 40: The requirement text leaks the internal tool name “must-gather” in
user-facing language, so update the wording in the dual-stream cluster RHCOS
9/10 document to use user-facing terminology like “diagnostic data collection”
or “support data collection” instead. Keep the rest of the statement intact and
ensure the revised wording is clear in the requirement around the current
sentence in the iuo.md content.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md`:
- Line 128: The PM/Lead Agreement entry still contains the `[Name/Date]`
placeholder, so update the agreement field in the STP with the actual reviewer
name and date before approval. Locate the `PM/Lead Agreement` line in the
document and replace the placeholder with the real sign-off details, ensuring no
empty placeholders remain in the final STP.
- Line 134: The sign-off placeholder is still left in the document and needs to
be replaced before approval. Update the sign-off entry in this section to use
the actual signer and date instead of the `[Name/Date]` placeholder, keeping the
surrounding sign-off format consistent with the rest of the file.
- Line 77: The Technology Challenges section currently leaks the internal CRD
name DataImportCrons, so update the wording in the relevant iuo.md content to
describe the capability generically instead of naming the CRD. Replace the
reference in the golden image provisioning discussion with a product-facing term
such as golden image provisioning or pre-configured boot source provisioning,
and keep the rest of the sentence structure intact.
🪄 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: 3147291d-7d96-46e5-94b0-fe0a070f516e
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md
| - *SIG-specific requirements:* | ||
| - OpenShift Virtualization components deploy and report ready on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes | ||
| - Golden images are available and functional on RHCOS 10.2 | ||
| - Must-gather collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Internal tool name "must-gather" leaked into user-facing requirements.
Replace with user-facing diagnostic terminology. "Diagnostic data collection" or "support data collection" describes what users experience without naming the internal tool.
- - Must-gather collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8
+ - Diagnostic data collection collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8📝 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
| - Must-gather collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8 | |
| - Diagnostic data collection collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8 |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 40, The
requirement text leaks the internal tool name “must-gather” in user-facing
language, so update the wording in the dual-stream cluster RHCOS 9/10 document
to use user-facing terminology like “diagnostic data collection” or “support
data collection” instead. Keep the rest of the statement intact and ensure the
revised wording is clear in the requirement around the current sentence in the
iuo.md content.
Source: Coding guidelines
| - OpenShift Virtualization components deploy and report ready on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes | ||
| - Golden images are available and functional on RHCOS 10.2 | ||
| - Must-gather collects complete and valid data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes, with no gaps compared to RHCOS 9.8 | ||
| - CNV migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported accurately during cross-version live migration |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Internal branding "CNV" in user-facing requirements.
Use "OpenShift Virtualization" or omit the prefix entirely — "migration metrics" is sufficient.
- - CNV migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported accurately during cross-version live migration
+ - OpenShift Virtualization migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported accurately during cross-version live migration📝 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
| - CNV migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported accurately during cross-version live migration | |
| - OpenShift Virtualization migration metrics (duration, data processed, bandwidth) are reported accurately during cross-version live migration |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 41, The
requirement text uses the internal branding “CNV” in a user-facing sentence;
update the wording in the document to use “OpenShift Virtualization” or remove
the prefix so it just says “migration metrics,” and keep the rest of the
requirement unchanged.
Source: Coding guidelines
| - Node placement policies are respected when scheduling and migrating VMs on dual-stream clusters | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] **Acceptance Criteria** | ||
| - All IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only cluster |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Acceptance criteria is test-centric, not user-outcome focused.
"All IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests pass" describes test execution, not observable user value. Reframe as what correct deployment enables: e.g., "OpenShift Virtualization deploys and reports ready on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes with all components functional."
- - All IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only cluster
+ - OpenShift Virtualization deploys and functions correctly on RHCOS 10.2-only clusters, with all IUO components reporting ready📝 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
| - All IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only cluster | |
| - OpenShift Virtualization deploys and functions correctly on RHCOS 10.2-only clusters, with all IUO components reporting ready |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 45, Update
the acceptance criteria in the IUO document so it describes the observable
deployment outcome rather than test execution; in the referenced section of the
dual-stream cluster RHCOS 9/RHCOS 10 IUO, replace the Tier 1/Tier 2 pass wording
with a user-focused statement tied to OpenShift Virtualization readiness and
functional components on RHCOS 10.2 worker nodes.
Source: Coding guidelines
| - Must-gather may encounter differences in log paths or system service names between RHCOS 9.8 | ||
| and RHCOS 10.2 nodes, potentially causing incomplete data collection. | ||
| - Golden image provisioning (DataImportCrons) depends on storage and CDI behavior that may | ||
| differ with the RHCOS 10.2 kernel. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low value
MEDIUM: Internal component name "CDI" in design review.
Use user-facing storage/data import terminology or spell out on first use.
- differ with the RHCOS 10.2 kernel.
+ differ with the RHCOS 10.2 kernel (Containerized Data Importer).🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` at line 78, The
design text uses the internal acronym “CDI”, which should be replaced with
user-facing storage/data import terminology or spelled out on first use. Update
the wording in the affected section of the document to avoid the standalone
acronym and make the reference clear to readers, keeping the same meaning while
using the full component name or a descriptive phrase.
Source: Coding guidelines
Comment on lines
+102
to
+103
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want all IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests to pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only | ||
| cluster so that I know OpenShift Virtualization functions correctly on the new platform. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Testing goal describes test execution, not user outcome.
Replace "all IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests to pass" with the user value that passing represents.
- **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want all IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests to pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only
- cluster so that I know OpenShift Virtualization functions correctly on the new platform.
+ **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want OpenShift Virtualization to deploy and function correctly
+ on an RHCOS 10.2-only cluster so that I can run VMs and workloads on the new platform.📝 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
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want all IUO Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests to pass on an RHCOS 10.2-only | |
| cluster so that I know OpenShift Virtualization functions correctly on the new platform. | |
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want OpenShift Virtualization to deploy and function correctly | |
| on an RHCOS 10.2-only cluster so that I can run VMs and workloads on the new platform. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 102 -
103, The user story text in the IUO section describes test execution rather than
the actual user benefit. Update the wording in the affected story so it states
the cluster-admin outcome enabled by successful Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests on the
RHCOS 10.2-only cluster, and keep the reference aligned with the existing IUO
Tier 1/Tier 2 wording in the dual-stream cluster document.
Source: Coding guidelines
Comment on lines
+104
to
+105
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather to collect complete data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes so | ||
| that support cases can be investigated without missing information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Internal tool name "must-gather" in user-facing testing goal.
Replace with user-facing diagnostic terminology.
- **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather to collect complete data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes so
- that support cases can be investigated without missing information.
+ **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want diagnostic data collection to collect complete data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes so
+ that support cases can be investigated without missing information.📝 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
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather to collect complete data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes so | |
| that support cases can be investigated without missing information. | |
| - **[P0]** As a cluster admin, I want diagnostic data collection to collect complete data from RHCOS 10.2 nodes so | |
| that support cases can be investigated without missing information. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 104 -
105, The testing goal text in the RHCOS 10.2 cluster admin scenario uses the
internal tool name must-gather, which should be replaced with user-facing
diagnostic wording. Update the affected user story in this document to use a
generic support/diagnostic term instead of must-gather, keeping the intent of
collecting complete node data for investigation.
Source: Coding guidelines
Comment on lines
+114
to
+115
| - **[P1]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather on a dual-stream cluster to collect data from both | ||
| RHCOS 9.8 and RHCOS 10.2 nodes so that I have a complete diagnostic picture. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
HIGH: Internal tool name "must-gather" in second testing goal.
Same fix as line 104-105.
- **[P1]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather on a dual-stream cluster to collect data from both
+ **[P1]** As a cluster admin, I want diagnostic data collection on a dual-stream cluster to collect data from both📝 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
| - **[P1]** As a cluster admin, I want must-gather on a dual-stream cluster to collect data from both | |
| RHCOS 9.8 and RHCOS 10.2 nodes so that I have a complete diagnostic picture. | |
| - **[P1]** As a cluster admin, I want diagnostic data collection on a dual-stream cluster to collect data from both | |
| RHCOS 9.8 and RHCOS 10.2 nodes so that I have a complete diagnostic picture. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@stps/sig-virt/dual-stream-cluster-rhcos9-rhcos10/iuo.md` around lines 114 -
115, The second testing goal still uses the internal tool name “must-gather,” so
update the wording in the dual-stream cluster iuo.md entry to match the same
user-facing terminology used earlier in the document. Locate the affected
testing-goal text in the dual-stream cluster section and replace the internal
name consistently, keeping the rest of the RHCOS 9.8/RHCOS 10.2 coverage
statement unchanged.
Source: Coding guidelines
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
7 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.
STP Metadata
VEP issue: no VEP for this feature
What this PR does
STP for automated tests [observability + iuo] for a dual-stream cluster (nodes RHCOS9 and RHCOS10)
Special notes for your reviewer
Summary by CodeRabbit