updated install-non-oss with vmware v7.0 and v8.0

[oferchen]

Description

This PR...

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)
• [x] Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• [x] Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• [ ] build/CI

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• [ ] Major
• [x] Minor

Bug Severity

• [ ] BLOCKER
• [ ] Critical
• [ ] Major
• [x] Minor
• [ ] Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[weizhouapache]

thanks for the pr @oferchen actually more packages are needed see https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack-nonoss/blob/main/install-non-oss.sh

[oferchen]

thanks for the pr @oferchen actually more packages are needed see https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack-nonoss/blob/main/install-non-ossI also added vsphere and customer connect and Netapp and the two juniper sdks

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 4.17%. Comparing base (de683a5) to head (85bbdfb). Report is 146 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #9205   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   4.17%   4.17%           
=====================================
  Files        371     371           
  Lines      30407   30407           
  Branches    5384    5384           
=====================================
  Hits        1269    1269           
  Misses     28994   28994           
  Partials     144     144           

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.17% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rohityadavcloud]

cc @nvazquez @Pearl1594 @oferchen I think what @weizhouapache is more appropriate it’s because most of us or our CI automation don’t use this script anymore.

[oferchen]

cc @nvazquez @Pearl1594 @oferchen I think what @weizhouapache is more appropriate it’s because most of us or our CI automation don’t use this script anymore.

As long as it is included in the repository might as well be updated and functional, specifically because some of the functionality won't work without it.

[DaanHoogland]

@rohityadavcloud @weizhouapache , I agree with @oferchen that we should not keep an outdated version in the repository if we can help it. So we need to apply this or remove it in my opinion. What do you think?

[oferchen]

Can someone please approve this pull request so we can move forward?

[boring-cyborg[bot]]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!