feat(xo-web): in health tab, hide PVS accelerator in orphan VDIs

[MelissaFrncJrg]

Description

Fixes #7938

Checklist

• Commit
  • Title follows commit conventions
  • Reference the relevant issue (Fixes #007, See xoa-support#42, See https://...)
  • If bug fix, add Introduced by
• Changelog
  • If visible by XOA users, add changelog entry
  • Update "Packages to release" in CHANGELOG.unreleased.md
• PR
  • If UI changes, add screenshots
  • If not finished or not tested, open as Draft

Review process

This 2-passes review process aims to:

• develop skills of junior reviewers
• limit the workload for senior reviewers
• limit the number of unnecessary changes by the author

1. The author creates a PR.
2. Review process:
   1. The author assigns the junior reviewer.
   2. The junior reviewer conducts their review:
      • Resolves their comments if they are addressed.
      • Adds comments if necessary or approves the PR.
   3. The junior reviewer assigns the senior reviewer.
   4. The senior reviewer conducts their review:
      • If there are no unresolved comments on the PR → merge.
      • Otherwise, we continue with 3.
3. The author responds to comments and/or makes corrections, and we go back to 2.

Notes:

1. The author can request a review at any time, even if the PR is still a Draft.
2. In theory, there should not be more than one reviewer at a time.
3. The author should not make any changes:
   • When a reviewer is assigned.
   • Between the junior and senior reviews.

[MathieuRA]

Don't forget to add CHANGELOG.unreleased.md

[MathieuRA]

Suggested change

	const HANDLED_VDI_TYPES = new Set(['system', 'user', 'ephemeral', 'pvs_cache'])
	const HANDLED_VDI_TYPES = new Set(['system', 'user', 'ephemeral'])

[MathieuRA]

Why add the pvs_cache type?
HANDLED_VDI_TYPES corresponds to the types of VDI we want to display.

[pdonias]

But since 'pvs_cache' is a VDI_type, wouldn't it be better to use that instead of the name_label and name_description to exclude them? /cc @olivierlambert

[julien-f]

I don't see this type being used on this forum's message: https://xcp-ng.org/forum/post/81940

[olivierlambert]

I was about to post the same answer ^^ There's nothing (for what I can see) in the XAPI record to discriminate it outside the name label & description.

[pdonias]

I do see a 'pvs_cache' type here though: https://github.com/xapi-project/xen-api/blob/master/ocaml/xapi/xapi_vdi.ml#L623-L624

[julien-f]

Me too, but we need to test how it works in real life.

[olivierlambert]

I wouldn't bet about the behaviour on something not even visible in the printed xe record. Even if a name/description isn't perfect, at least we have a proof on how it works, and we have 0 chances to get a PVS server around to test it. So even if it's counter-intuitive, I found the name solution safer than hopping XAPI is doing its work correctly.

[MathieuRA]

You can mutualize that with the if above.
Also add a comment that link to github issue.

if(
   ... ||
   vdi.name_label === 'PVS cache VDI' && vdi.name_description === 'PVS cache VDI' // see https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues/7938
 ) {...}

[pdonias]

But since 'pvs_cache' is a VDI_type, wouldn't it be better to use that instead of the name_label and name_description to exclude them? /cc @olivierlambert