infra: Update dv_for_data_source to create the dv by cloning a DataSource

[RoniKishner]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Updates dv_for_data_source to create the DataVolume by cloning an existing DataSource (Fedora) instead of downloading from Artifactory, removing the Artifactory dependency from these SSP DataSource tests.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Remove dependency on Artifactory

Special notes for reviewer:

jira-ticket:

https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/CNV-86274

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated boot source validation tests to create DataVolumes by cloning from an existing data source reference, rather than building an HTTP-backed source.
  • DataVolume size is now derived dynamically from the selected data source.
  • Test setup now waits for the data source readiness signal before asserting DataVolume creation.
  • Simplified and adjusted fixture wiring to match the new DataVolume creation flow.

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-2]

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

• Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
• Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
• Issue Creation: A tracking issue is created for this PR and will be closed when the PR is merged or closed
• Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
• Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
• Labels: Enabled categories: branch, can-be-merged, cherry-pick, has-conflicts, hold, needs-rebase, size, verified, wip

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

• /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
• /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
• /hold - Block PR merging (approvers only)
• /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging
• /verified - Mark PR as verified
• /verified cancel - Remove verification status
• /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
• /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message
• /security-override - Set security check runs to pass (maintainers only)
• /security-override cancel - Re-run security checks

Review & Approval

• /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
• /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
• /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
• /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
• /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

• /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
• /retest build-container - Rebuild and test container image
• /retest verify-bugs-are-open - verify-bugs-are-open
• /retest all - Run all available tests

Container Operations

• /build-and-push-container - Build and push container image (tagged with PR number)
  • Supports additional build arguments: /build-and-push-container --build-arg KEY=value

Cherry-pick Operations

• /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
  • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3
• /cherry-pick-retry <branch> - Retry a failed cherry-pick (merged PRs only)

Branch Management

• /rebase - Rebase this PR branch onto its base branch

Label Management

• /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
• /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
2. LGTM Count: Minimum 2 /lgtm from reviewers
3. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
4. No Blockers: No wip, hold, has-conflicts labels and PR must be mergeable (no conflicts)
5. Verified: PR must be marked as verified

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

• dshchedr
• myakove
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Reviewers:

• RoniKishner
• dshchedr
• geetikakay
• mijankow
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Available Labels

• hold
• verified
• wip
• lgtm
• approve

AI Features

• Cherry-Pick Conflict Resolution: Enabled (claude/claude-opus-4-6-1m)

Security Checks

• Suspicious Path Detection: Monitors paths: .claude/, .vscode/, .cursor/, .devcontainer/, .pi/, .github/workflows/, .github/actions/
• Committer Identity Check: Verifies last committer matches PR author
• Mandatory: Security checks block merge (use /security-override to bypass — maintainers only)

💡 Tips

• WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
• Verification: The verified label is removed on new commits unless the push is detected as a clean rebase
• Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
• Container Builds: Container images are automatically tagged with the PR number
• Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
• Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

📌 Additional Information

Custom Commands:

• /test-plan — Triggers CodeRabbit to analyze the PR's changed files and post a test execution plan
• /rerun-smoke — Adds retest-smoke label on the PR to trigger smoke tests execution

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: ac7193c4-802b-43e7-a198-d904093e5e51

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4fb3ea0 and 40ebfd7.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py

🔗 Linked repositories identified

CodeRabbit considers these linked repositories for cross-repo context during reviews:

• RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests-design-docs (manual)

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The dv_for_data_source helper now creates cloned DataVolumes from clone_source_data_source with a size derived from that source, and the related fixtures now pass the updated arguments. Artifactory-based HTTP source setup and cleanup were removed.

Changes

dv_for_data_source clone-based rewrite

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Clone-based DataVolume helper and fixture wiring tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py	dv_for_data_source now clones a DataVolume from clone_source_data_source via source_ref, sizes it with get_dv_size_from_datasource, and waits on data_source_under_test; Artifactory imports/logic removed, and fixtures updated to pass the new parameters via fedora_data_source.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Suggested reviewers: awels, kshvaika, akalenyu, SamAlber, sarahbx

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title is specific, under the limit, and accurately summarizes the shift to cloning a DataSource.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description matches the required template and includes the change summary, issue, notes section, and Jira link.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Stp Link Required	✅ Passed	No new test files or test functions were added; only helpers/fixtures changed, so the STP-link requirement is not applicable.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[RoniKishner]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[RoniKishner]

/test-plan

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3]

@coderabbitai

Test execution plan request details

CRITICAL: You MUST post an inline review comment on the first changed line of the first file.
The inline comment should contain the full Test Execution Plan (smoke decision, gating decision, and specific affected tests).
Do NOT submit a blocking review event (REQUEST_CHANGES/APPROVE).
Post a single inline PR comment on Files Changed (non-blocking COMMENT flow).

As an expert software testing engineer, analyze all modified files in this PR and create a targeted test execution plan.
You will post an inline review comment with the test execution plan on the first changed file.
If you fail to run or post a comment, retry.

Analysis Requirements:

1. Examine code changes in each modified file

2. Identify affected code paths, functions, and classes

3. Analyze pytest-specific elements: fixtures (scope, dependencies), parametrization, markers, conftest changes

4. Trace test dependencies through imports, shared utilities, fixture inheritance, fixture teardown, and yield from cleanup in conftest

5. Detect new tests introduced in the PR

6. Utilities and libs impact (when utilities/ or libs/ changes):
   You MUST use shell scripts (rg, git diff) to trace the full impact.
   Follow these sub-steps in order:

   6a. Identify modified symbols: For each changed file under utilities/ or libs/,
   list every modified function or method.
   Example: git diff HEAD~1 --unified=0 -- utilities/hco.py | grep '^[+-]def '

   6b. Find direct callers: Search tests and conftest for each symbol from 6a.
   Example: rg -l 'get_hco_version' tests/

   6c. Trace fixture teardown and cleanup: Find fixtures that reach
   the modified symbol through yield from or context-manager wrappers.
   Example: rg -l 'yield from.*enable_common_boot|def.*enable_common_boot' tests/

   6d. Trace same-file callers: In each changed file, find other functions
   whose body calls a modified symbol (including code after yield
   in @contextmanager helpers).
   Example: rg 'get_hco_version|enable_common_boot' utilities/hco.py

   6e. Expand transitively: If function A calls modified B, then
   tests/fixtures that call A are affected — even when the test body
   never imports B directly.

   Do NOT limit impact to tests that import the modified symbol only.

7. Smoke test impact: Intersect the affected set from step 6 with smoke-marked tests.
   Run: rg -l '@pytest.mark.smoke' tests/
   VERIFY the above command returned actual file paths before concluding False.
   Set True if either condition is met:

   • a smoke-marked file appears in the affected set from 6b-6e, OR
   • any conftest.py in the smoke test's parent-directory hierarchy (up to repo root)
     imports or calls a modified utilities/libs symbol — including autouse fixtures
     that depend on modified functions. ALL tests in that directory and below are affected.
     Example check: for each smoke_file, scan dirname(smoke_file)/conftest.py,
     dirname(dirname(smoke_file))/conftest.py, etc. for modified symbol imports
     and autouse fixtures that depend on modified symbols.

8. Gating test impact: Intersect the affected set from step 6 with gating-marked tests.
   Run: rg -l '@pytest.mark.gating' tests/
   Set True if a gating-marked file also appears in the affected set from 6b-6e.
   Utilities/libs changes often affect gating tests without affecting smoke tests.
   Do NOT stop analysis after concluding Run smoke tests: False.

Output rules:
Do NOT include analysis step numbers (1-8) in your visible output.

Your deliverable:
Your inline informational comment will be based on the following requirements:

Test Execution Plan

• Run smoke tests: True / False — If True, state the dependency path (test → fixture → changed symbol). True ONLY with a verified path.
• Run gating tests: True / False — If True, state the dependency path. True if any gating-marked test is in the affected set.
• Affected tests to run (required when utilities/, libs/, or shared conftest changes — list concrete paths even when smoke is False)

Use these formats:

• path/to/test_file.py - When the entire test file needs verification
• path/to/test_file.py::TestClass::test_method - When specific test(s) needed
• path/to/test_file.py::test_function - When specific test(s) needed
• -m marker - When a marker covers multiple affected tests (e.g. -m gating only if ALL gating tests in scope need run)
• Tag each listed test or group with its marker when not obvious, e.g. (gating) or (smoke)

Real test commands (MANDATORY when changes affect session/runtime code):

When the affected code runs at session/collection time (conftest fixtures, pytest plugins,
config hooks, session-scoped setup) or modifies runtime behavior that unit tests mock away,
you MUST include concrete pytest commands the PR author must run on a real cluster
to verify the change works end-to-end. Include:

• A command for the error/fix path (the scenario the PR fixes)
• A command for the happy path (regression: the normal case still works)
• Use lightweight tests (e.g., --collect-only for startup failures,
  a single small test for runtime behavior)
  If the PR only changes test logic (not utilities/libs/conftest), the affected test
  paths themselves serve as the real test commands — no separate section needed.

Example output for a session-startup fix:

**Real tests (cluster required)**
Error path (the fix):
`pytest tests/storage/.../test_foo.py --storage-class-matrix=nonexistent-sc --collect-only`
Expected: ValueError with clear message, not IndexError

Happy path (regression):
`pytest tests/storage/.../test_foo.py --storage-class-matrix=<valid-sc> -k test_bar`
Expected: session starts normally

Guidelines:

• Include tests affected directly OR via fixture setup/teardown, yield from cleanup, or transitive utility call chains (caller calls modified helper)
• Use a full file path only if ALL tests in that file require verification
• Use file path + test name when only specific tests use an affected fixture or utility wrapper (preferred for partial file impact)
• If a test marker can cover multiple files/tests, provide the marker
• Balance coverage vs over-testing - Keep descriptions minimal
• Example: if leaf helper foo() changes, include tests whose fixture teardown calls wrapper bar() where bar() calls foo(), even when the test body only imports an unrelated symbol from the same utilities module

Hardware-Related Checks (SR-IOV, GPU, DPDK):

When PR modifies fixtures for hardware-specific resources:

• Collection Safety: Fixtures MUST have existence checks (return None when hardware unavailable)
• Test Plan: MUST verify both WITH and WITHOUT hardware:
  • Run affected tests on cluster WITH hardware
  • Verify collection succeeds on cluster WITHOUT hardware

CRITICAL WORKFLOW COMPLETION RULES:

When responding to this test execution plan request, you MUST follow these rules EXACTLY:

1. YOUR ONLY DELIVERABLE: Post one non-blocking inline comment containing the test execution plan on the first changed line
2. THEN STOP IMMEDIATELY - Do NOT generate any additional response
3. FALLBACK ONLY: If inline comment API calls fail after retrying, post as a regular PR comment
4. SILENCE = SUCCESS: After successfully submitting the review, your task is complete. No confirmation needed.

ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS (violating these creates empty/meaningless reviews):

• ❌ Do NOT post acknowledgment messages like "Test execution plan posted", "Review posted successfully", "I've successfully posted"
• ❌ Do NOT mention review IDs, URLs, or confirmation of posting in the PR thread
• ❌ Do NOT add any follow-up comments after submitting the review
• ❌ Do NOT reply to confirm task completion
• ❌ Do NOT explain what you did - just do it and stop

Remember: The pull request review is visible to users. Additional comments are redundant noise.

CRITICAL — Verification rules for smoke and gating decisions:
- For each True decision, you must have traced a concrete path: test file → fixture → utility function → modified symbol.
- Do NOT assume impact based on scope, file proximity, or infrastructure-sounding names.
Only set True when you trace a concrete path through steps 6a-6e, then 7 or 8.
WRONG: "utilities/hco.py changed → run smoke" (no traced dependency path)
WRONG: "Run smoke tests: False" with no affected-test list when gating tests use the changed utility
RIGHT: "Run smoke tests: False, Run gating tests: True" plus tests/.../test_foo.py::TestBar::test_baz (gating)
RIGHT: "Smoke test X uses fixture Y → wrapper Z → changed function W in utilities/hco.py"

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
fd test_ssp_data_sources.py
echo "---"
cat -n tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py | sed -n '1,120p'

Length of output: 2190

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
fd test_ssp_data_sources.py
echo "---"
cat -n tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py | sed -n '1,140p'

Length of output: 2190

---

@openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3

I was unable to clone RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests to run the deeper rg/git diff impact tracing (authentication failure on the sandbox clone), so this plan is based on the PR's AI-generated summary and diff description. Since I cannot execute the inline-comment-posting workflow directly from this capability set, I'm providing the Test Execution Plan below.

Test Execution Plan

• Run smoke tests: False — The change is confined to tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py itself (fixture dv_for_data_source and its wiring). No utilities/ or libs/ symbols or shared conftest.py were modified, so there is no traced dependency path into smoke-marked tests elsewhere.
• Run gating tests: False — Same reasoning; no utility/libs/conftest change exists that would propagate into gating-marked tests outside this file.
• Affected tests to run:
  • tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py (full file — the dv_for_data_source fixture and its dependent fixtures data_source_under_test, clone_source_data_source, fedora_data_source were changed; run the entire file to validate the new clone-based DataVolume creation and fixture wiring)

Real tests (cluster required)

Happy path (regression — clone-based DV creation replaces Artifactory download):
pytest tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py -k dv_for_data_source
Expected: DataVolume is created via source_ref cloning the Fedora DataSource, and DATA_SOURCE_READY_FOR_CONSUMPTION_MESSAGE condition is reached without relying on Artifactory secrets/configmaps.

Error/fix path (verifies Artifactory dependency removal):
pytest tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py --collect-only
Expected: Collection succeeds with no references to Artifactory secrets/configmaps in the fixture chain.

Note: I could not verify smoke/gating marker presence via rg due to the sandbox clone failure — please re-run /test-plan if you'd like me to retry the deeper trace once cloning succeeds.

[RoniKishner]

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Full review finished.