Fix issue when restoring backup after migration of volume #12549

Pearl1594 · 2026-01-29T16:45:45Z

Description

This PR fixes: #12517

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

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

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

codecov · 2026-01-29T16:52:00Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 5.17%. Comparing base (a6ccde4) to head (101e2a0).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on 4.20.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (a6ccde4) and HEAD (101e2a0). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag BASE (a6ccde4) HEAD (101e2a0)

unittests 1 0

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.20   #12549       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     16.26%    5.17%   -11.09%     
=============================================
  Files          5660      403     -5257     
  Lines        499907    33344   -466563     
  Branches      60696     6149    -54547     
=============================================
- Hits          81316     1727    -79589     
+ Misses       409521    31416   -378105     
+ Partials       9070      201     -8869

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	`5.07% <ø> (+0.91%)`	⬆️
unittests	`?`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

sureshanaparti · 2026-01-29T17:19:45Z

plugins/backup/nas/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/backup/NASBackupProvider.java

        List<Backup.VolumeInfo> backedVolumes = backup.getBackedUpVolumes();
        List<VolumeVO> volumes = backedVolumes.stream()
-                .map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getUuid()))
+                .map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getPath()))


the new uuid or path after migration needs to be updated in the backed-up volumes metadata if any backups existing for them? any case path might also change?

The new UUID / path for the backed up volume doesn't need to be updated as the uuid - points to the volume UUID - which is always the same on subsequent backups, and the path points to the backup path - which shouldn't vary even if volume is migrated. I don't see the path of the backup changing.

Suggested change

.map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getPath()))

.map(backedVolumeInfo -> volumeDao.findByUuid(backedVolumeInfo.getPath()))

it's better change to backedVolumeInfo to avoid confusion.

@Pearl1594 Correct, path of the backup doesn't change. I mean, the volume path after migration might change as the volume is checked by its backed up path (which is before migration). cc @abh1sar

Pearl1594 · 2026-01-29T20:33:07Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-01-29T20:34:08Z

@Pearl1594 a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-01-29T21:39:02Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16637

Pearl1594 · 2026-01-30T00:04:09Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-01-30T00:06:03Z

@Pearl1594 a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

abh1sar · 2026-01-30T03:56:42Z

plugins/backup/nas/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/backup/NASBackupProvider.java

        List<Backup.VolumeInfo> backedVolumes = backup.getBackedUpVolumes();
        List<VolumeVO> volumes = backedVolumes.stream()
-                .map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getUuid()))
+                .map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getPath()))


volumeDao.findByUuid() should take volume.getUuid() as an argument not path.

Volume paths are actually set in restoreCommand.setVolumePaths(getVolumePaths(volumes));
which is getting the path from volume.getPath().
So, ideally it should work as is. Can you check?

The bug is obvious in Restore single volume code restoreCommand.setVolumePaths(Collections.singletonList(String.format("%s/%s", dataStore.getLocalPath(), volumeUUID)));
-- here we should use the volume path not uuid

my bad - I did the test / changes and 4.22 but made the wrong change on 4.20 - I meant to change this: to getPath from getUUID() - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/4.22/plugins/backup/nas/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/backup/NASBackupProvider.java#L295
I'll fix it.

blueorangutan · 2026-01-30T15:03:56Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15340)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 50996 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12549-t15340-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 141 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

… to be restored

sonarqubecloud · 2026-02-02T17:03:46Z

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
0.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 40%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

sureshanaparti · 2026-02-02T17:45:15Z

plugins/backup/nas/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/backup/NASBackupProvider.java

    }

-    private List<String> getVolumePaths(List<VolumeVO> volumes) {
+    private List<String> getVolumePaths(List<VolumeVO> volumes, List<Backup.VolumeInfo> backedVolumes) {


this returns empty list when backedVolumes is empty - passed in takeBackup() above

You're right - fixed it.

Fix issue when restoring backup after migration of volume

f51e048

Pearl1594 requested review from abh1sar and sureshanaparti January 29, 2026 16:45

boring-cyborg bot added the component:backup label Jan 29, 2026

sureshanaparti reviewed Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Pearl1594 added this to the 4.20.3 milestone Jan 29, 2026

abh1sar reviewed Jan 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

use the backed volume path to get the right location of backed volume…

348c9ee

… to be restored

sureshanaparti reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix logic to prevent take backup from failing

101e2a0

	.map(volume -> volumeDao.findByUuid(volume.getPath()))
	.map(backedVolumeInfo -> volumeDao.findByUuid(backedVolumeInfo.getPath()))

Fix issue when restoring backup after migration of volume #12549

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Fix issue when restoring backup after migration of volume #12549

Conversation

Pearl1594 commented Jan 29, 2026

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or 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!

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

sureshanaparti Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pearl1594 Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sureshanaparti Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pearl1594 commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Pearl1594 commented Jan 30, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 30, 2026

Uh oh!

abh1sar Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pearl1594 Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 30, 2026

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud bot commented Feb 2, 2026

Quality Gate failed

Uh oh!

sureshanaparti Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pearl1594 Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Pearl1594 Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading