Skip to content

use ConfigKeys for account, domain, project and SSO settings - #14468

Open
DaanHoogland wants to merge 1 commit into
ghi10752-config-foundationfrom
ghi10752-config-account
Open

DaanHoogland wants to merge 1 commit into
ghi10752-config-foundationfrom
ghi10752-config-account

Conversation

@DaanHoogland

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Switches the account, domain, project and SSO call sites from Config/ConfigurationDao.getValue() to the ConfigKeys declared in the foundation PR.

Part 2 of 12 of the split of #13884 (phase out the deprecated Config enum, #10752). Base: ghi10752-config-foundation. Independent of the other PRs based on the foundation, so it can be reviewed and merged in any order relative to them; GitHub retargets it to main once the foundation is merged.

Size: 4 files, +58/-54.

Split overview: foundation → parallel PRs (account, vpn-vpc, snapshot-usage, event-bus, literals) + stacked core-1 … core-5 → enum-removal (last).

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

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

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

Local verification: full reactor build (checkstyle included) and the unit tests of every touched module pass on this branch; merging all PRs of the split in any order gives no conflicts and reproduces #13884 plus its fixes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Part of the split of #13884 (phase out the Config enum, #10752).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 22, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 1.78571% with 55 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 20.48%. Comparing base (d58e94b) to head (f3c9b51).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
.../cloud/resourcelimit/ResourceLimitManagerImpl.java 0.00% 43 Missing ⚠️
...java/com/cloud/server/ConfigurationServerImpl.java 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
...in/java/com/cloud/projects/ProjectManagerImpl.java 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@                        Coverage Diff                        @@
##             ghi10752-config-foundation   #14468       +/-   ##
=================================================================
+ Coverage                          3.70%   20.48%   +16.77%     
- Complexity                            0    21414    +21414     
=================================================================
  Files                               493     6503     +6010     
  Lines                             42558   589640   +547082     
  Branches                           8063    72246    +64183     
=================================================================
+ Hits                               1578   120760   +119182     
- Misses                            40751   455748   +414997     
- Partials                            229    13132    +12903     
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 3.70% <ø> (ø)
unittests 21.78% <1.78%> (?)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
1.5% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 40%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Metric Value
Line coverage 25.53%
Branch coverage 19.80%

Grade Scale

Grade Line Coverage Meaning
🟢 A ≥ 80% Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B 60-79% Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C 40-59% Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D 20-39% Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F < 20% Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

1 participant