From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F39101FF0AF
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 13:25:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 89C65215CA;
	Fri, 06 Nov 2026 13:25:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Kefu Chai <k.chai@proxmox.com>
To: m.koeppl@proxmox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH e2e-tests 25/38] test framework: add Ceph test helpers
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 2026 20:24:47 +0800
Message-ID: <20261106122447.245035-1-k.chai@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3
In-Reply-To: <20261104190345.2573464-26-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
References: <20261104190345.2573464-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20261104190345.2573464-26-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793967892000
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.246 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
	SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Message-ID-Hash: P7HZLB5PU3INKVG6E5QJY7PDFXDJ62KB
X-Message-ID-Hash: P7HZLB5PU3INKVG6E5QJY7PDFXDJ62KB
X-MailFrom: k.chai@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

Hi Michael,

> [snip]
> +                my $pgmap = $last->{pgmap} // {};
> +                my $clean = 0;
> +                for my $state (($pgmap->{pgs_by_state} // [])->@*) {
> +                    $clean += $state->{count} if $state->{state_name} eq 'active+clean';
> +                }
> +                return $clean == ($pgmap->{num_pgs} // 0) ? $last : 0;
> [snip]

Waiting for quorum and all expected OSDs to be up and in makes sense.
For the PGs, I'd allow scrubbing alongside active+clean.

A healthy, fully replicated PG can be active+clean+scrubbing or
active+clean+scrubbing+deep. The exact match here means the test has
to wait for scrubbing to finish, which could cause an unnecessary
delay or timeout.

Could we accept those two states as well? I'd allow the scrub flags
explicitly: checking only that active and clean are present could
also accept an inconsistent PG.

The OSD drain check in the replacement test later in the series
has the same issue.