Improvement/CLDSRV-825 drop ceph support

[benzekrimaha]

Issue: CLDSRV-825

[bert-e]

Hello benzekrimaha,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

[claude]

LGTM

Clean removal of all Ceph-related code: Docker files, location config, CI_CEPH env var checks, isCEPH/itSkipCeph/describeSkipIfCeph conditionals, and capability flags. No leftover Ceph references found in JS, JSON, or YAML files. The test-utils exports are consistent after the change.

Review by Claude Code

[DarkIsDude]

Can you check the CI 🙏 ?

[claude]

LGTM

Clean removal of Ceph support across the codebase. The changes are consistent: CI infrastructure (Dockerfile, docker-compose, wait script), config/env var references (CI_CEPH, locationTypeCephRadosGW, cephIngestLocation), test utilities (isCEPH, itSkipCeph, describeSkipIfCeph, describeSkipIfNotMultipleOrCeph), Ceph-specific location config, and Ceph-specific behavior branches in tests are all properly removed. The rangeTest.js refactor correctly updates the uploadParts function to return part responses for CompleteMultipartUpload and properly handles the AWS SDK v3 streaming body. The reportHandler correctly hardcodes locationTypeCephRadosGW to false and the Config.js filtering of location-ceph-radosgw-s3-v1 from supportedLocationTypes provides defense-in-depth.

Review by Claude Code

[claude]

LGTM

Clean removal of Ceph support across the codebase. The capability flag is correctly hardcoded to false, Config.js CI_CEPH env var checks are properly removed, and previously-always-skipped tests (describeSkipIfNotMultipleOrCeph was set to describe.skip unconditionally) are now correctly gated by describeSkipIfNotMultiple. The rangeTest.js refactoring to return part ETags from uploadParts for CompleteMultipartUpload is correct since Promise.all preserves input order.

Review by Claude Code

[claude]

The backbeat DELETE routes block was changed from describeSkipIfNotMultipleOrCeph (always describe.skip) to describeSkipIfNotMultiple, and the inner test was changed from plain it to itIfLocationAws. This is correct -- the abort MPU test needs the AWS location. However, this block was previously always skipped unconditionally. Now it will run when config.backends.data === 'multiple' AND the AWS location is configured. Verify CI has the AWS location available when running with the multiple backend, or this test will fail instead of being skipped.

— Claude Code

[claude]

config.capabilities is stored as-is (unfiltered) while this.supportedLocationTypes is filtered to exclude location-ceph-radosgw-s3-v1. If any downstream code reads this.capabilities.locationTypes directly instead of this.supportedLocationTypes, the Ceph entry would still be visible. Currently reportHandler.js uses supportedLocationTypes so this works, but for consistency consider filtering config.capabilities.locationTypes before storing, or adding a note that this.capabilities is the raw config.

— Claude Code

[claude]

LGTM with minor notes:

- Config.js:1884: this.capabilities stores the raw config including the Ceph locationTypes entry, while this.supportedLocationTypes filters it out. Currently safe since reportHandler uses supportedLocationTypes, but could cause confusion if capabilities.locationTypes is read directly elsewhere.
- Consider filtering capabilities.locationTypes before storing, or documenting that supportedLocationTypes is authoritative.

- routeBackbeat.js:199: The backbeat DELETE routes block was previously always skipped (describeSkipIfNotMultipleOrCeph was always describe.skip). It now runs with the multiple backend. The inner test correctly uses itIfLocationAws, but verify CI environments have the AWS location configured when running multiple backend tests.

- General note on re-enabled tests: Many Azure/GCP tests used describeSkipIfNotMultipleOrCeph which was hardcoded to describe.skip. Replacing with describeSkipIfNotMultiple enables these tests when running with the multiple backend. This is intentional per the PR purpose, but be aware that CI may see new test executions that were previously unconditionally skipped.

Review by Claude Code

[DarkIsDude]

I found some CEPH reference in the product doc that we should also clean. The CI is still unstable

[DarkIsDude]

I'm not sure to understand your point @francoisferrand