Fix power on string in cycle check:

[jacobweinstock]

Description

This fixes power cycle requests. At line 307 If action == v1.PowerAction_POWER_ACTION_CYCLE.String() then we set the requested power state to be the string "POWER_ACTION_ON". This causes the client.SetPowerState(ctx, pwrAction) to fail as the string "POWER_ACTION_ON" is not recognized by bmclib. We need to pass "on" as is done in line 219.

Why is this needed

Fixes: #

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested manually against vaporio/ipmi-simulator container image.

How are existing users impacted? What migration steps/scripts do we need?

Checklist:

I have:

• updated the documentation and/or roadmap (if required)
• added unit or e2e tests
• provided instructions on how to upgrade

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #105 (2288dbd) into main (1ffd6a4) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #105   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.34%   80.34%           
=======================================
  Files          10       10           
  Lines         468      468           
=======================================
  Hits          376      376           
  Misses         79       79           
  Partials       13       13           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1ffd6a4...2288dbd. Read the comment docs.

[tstromberg]

Can has test?

[jacobweinstock]

Can has test?

Only 3 words, but a great observation and point. This function definitely should have a test. I created #106 to capture this need. Apologizes, I know that doesn't help with this PR. Would you be comfortable with a follow-up PR to add tests?

[nshalman]

This was a subtle one. Thank you for catching it!

[nshalman]

Can has test?

Only 3 words, but a great observation and point. This function definitely should have a test. I created #106 to capture this need. Apologizes, I know that doesn't help with this PR. Would you be comfortable with a follow-up PR to add tests?

Based on when this bug was introduced, I'd like the fix to land now and am comfortable with #106, having been filed, being left open for today.