Add OCPVComputeResource entity to validate foreman_kubevirt

[Gauravtalreja1]

Adding new OCPVComputeResource entity and tests to validate foreman_kubevirt as per SAT-41368

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've found 1 issue, and left some high level feedback:

• The OCPVComputeResource docstring still refers to a Libvirt compute resource, which is misleading here and should be updated to describe the KubeVirt/OpenShift Virtualization resource.
• Consider using a more appropriate field type (e.g., an integer or constrained type) for api_port instead of a generic StringField to better reflect its expected value and catch invalid input earlier.

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- The `OCPVComputeResource` docstring still refers to a Libvirt compute resource, which is misleading here and should be updated to describe the KubeVirt/OpenShift Virtualization resource.
- Consider using a more appropriate field type (e.g., an integer or constrained type) for `api_port` instead of a generic `StringField` to better reflect its expected value and catch invalid input earlier.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location> `nailgun/entities.py:1723-1724` </location>
<code_context>
         ignore.add('password')
         return super().read(entity, attrs, ignore, params)

+class OCPVComputeResource(AbstractComputeResource):
+    """A representation of a Libvirt Compute Resource entity."""
+
+    def __init__(self, server_config=None, **kwargs):
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**issue (typo):** Docstring mentions Libvirt, but this resource is configured as a Kubevirt/OpenShift Virtualization provider.

Please update the docstring to describe this as a Kubevirt/OpenShift Virtualization compute resource so it matches the default provider configuration and avoids confusion.

```suggestion
class OCPVComputeResource(AbstractComputeResource):
    """A representation of a Kubevirt/OpenShift Virtualization compute resource."""
```
</issue_to_address>

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[evgeni]

Technically this field is not required

[Gauravtalreja1]

Currently if we don't pass this field, we get following error

Could not create the compute resource:
  SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=error: certificate verify failed (self-signed certificate in certificate chain)

[evgeni]

Correct, but that doesn't mean it's required by the API, which is what I was after.

If your OS trusts the CA, you don't need to pass ca_cert. In most cases it won't, so you have to pass it, but that doesn't make the field required.

[Gauravtalreja1]

ah, I get you, so technically its not required, but for our tests we don't have OS trusts the CA, so it becomes required anyway and we can revisit this in future if we cover that case

[evgeni]

I'd prefer that ca_cert would not be marked as required, but won't block on that.

[shubhamsg199]

Ack