api: fix access for listSystemVmUsageHistory

[shwstppr]

Description

Fixes #10031

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?

[shwstppr]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@shwstppr 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 15.12%. Comparing base (7cfeab1) to head (6eb178f).
Report is 31 commits behind head on 4.19.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.19   #10032      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     15.12%   15.12%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    11255    11253       -2     
============================================
  Files          5407     5407              
  Lines        473799   473799              
  Branches      57767    57767              
============================================
- Hits          71670    71665       -5     
- Misses       394130   394136       +6     
+ Partials       7999     7998       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.30% <ø> (ø)
unittests	15.84% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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.

[DaanHoogland]

code looks good, but I am not sure if we need this change.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11702

[rohityadavcloud]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

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

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11842)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 52527 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr10032-t11842-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 133 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[scottsignal]

@blueorangutan ui

[blueorangutan]

@scottsignal a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

UI build: ✔️
Live QA URL: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/simulator/pr/10032 (QA-JID-496)

[scottsignal]

UI build: ✔️ Live QA URL: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/simulator/pr/10032 (QA-JID-496)

@DaanHoogland Should I be able to test using the simulator? This is new to me and I am not a developer by background.

Loaded in-built API cache. Failed to read API cache, please run 'sync'.

(PR10032) 🐗 > sync
Discovered 391 APIs

(PR10032) 🐍 > list systemvmsusagehistory 
count = 11
virtualmachine:
+--------------------------------------+----------+-------+
|                  ID                  |   NAME   | STATS |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-------+
| 631392f0-77c6-4cdd-b726-7e22d2b1c115 | s-255-VM | []    |
| 9b13db8c-3e4c-45a5-8a83-fb8ba58f03f4 | v-256-VM | []    |
| 250efb5f-1152-443b-ae85-e58465df0e7f | s-257-VM | []    |
| 7720beb2-df17-4582-a1cc-e7fde09b5114 | s-258-VM | []    |
| cd05f191-33ff-41d6-8c77-b44b7c49a214 | v-259-VM | []    |
| e41b7c4e-1ffc-4cba-a47a-e2853e5af010 | v-260-VM | []    |
| 26ab04b3-81d8-4dc2-b5e5-c75c7ab62b73 | r-261-VM | []    |
| 5ab7cd64-5b22-4fd7-96f6-700376da7717 | r-262-VM | []    |
| a5964cc0-e19f-47fc-9b98-285585e82c0e | r-263-VM | []    |
| acf6cb4a-2e19-40ca-8ffe-c5b68f54aa73 | r-264-VM | []    |
| d4411537-ff55-4d1e-b332-41bb4f128d2a | r-265-VM | []    |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-------+

[shwstppr]

@scottsignal you won't be able to use the QA server to test this PR as the changes in it are in Java code. You will either have to run dev build (maybe with simulator deployment) or build packages (to test in a real env) using the PR commit.

[scottsignal]

@scottsignal you won't be able to use the QA server to test this PR as the changes in it are in Java code. You will either have to run dev build (maybe with simulator deployment) or build packages (to test in a real env) using the PR commit.

Understood. Not sure I have a way to test this then. I have figured out how to use the simulator with the docker based images, but unless I am missing something I only see the 4.21 nightly's out there.

[DaanHoogland]

@scottsignal you won't be able to use the QA server to test this PR as the changes in it are in Java code. You will either have to run dev build (maybe with simulator deployment) or build packages (to test in a real env) using the PR commit.

Understood. Not sure I have a way to test this then. I have figured out how to use the simulator with the docker based images, but unless I am missing something I only see the 4.21 nightly's out there.

simulator will do for this functionality @scottsignal . You will have to build the specific version though. I think you can in the docker container.

[vladimirpetrov]

LGTM based on manual testing.