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 716CD1FF0AF
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:05:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 605862161B;
	Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:05:08 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:04:59 +0100
Message-Id: <DMO5EA0N4Q4P.2WRS9XBN5LNM8@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH e2e-tests 25/38] test framework: add Ceph test helpers
From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
To: "Kefu Chai" <k.chai@proxmox.com>, <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0
References: <20261104190345.2573464-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20261104190345.2573464-26-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20261106122447.245035-1-k.chai@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20261106122447.245035-1-k.chai@proxmox.com>
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793970299170
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.209 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: 6CEOQLWIT4T6G4FUVVA7FB2FOFCIPNUW
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6CEOQLWIT4T6G4FUVVA7FB2FOFCIPNUW
X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@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>

On Fri Nov 6, 2026 at 1:24 PM CET, Kefu Chai wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>> [snip]
>> +                my $pgmap =3D $last->{pgmap} // {};
>> +                my $clean =3D 0;
>> +                for my $state (($pgmap->{pgs_by_state} // [])->@*) {
>> +                    $clean +=3D $state->{count} if $state->{state_name}=
 eq 'active+clean';
>> +                }
>> +                return $clean =3D=3D ($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.

Thanks for taking the time to look at these tests and your feedback!
Can definitely add these for a v2. I'll add a list of explicitly
accepted states as in the following example and accept either state
while checking:

```
my $CLEAN_PG_STATES =3D {
    'active+clean' =3D> 1,
    'active+clean+scrubbing' =3D> 1,
    'active+clean+scrubbing+deep' =3D> 1,
};
```

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