fix: correct VM snapshot usage attribution (two defects)

[waterWang]

Fixes #13921

Two defects corrected in VMSnapshotUsageParser:

1. Wrong snapshot ID label in usage record: createUsageRecord() used the current snapshot's ID (usageRec.getVmSnapshotId()) while duration, size, and disk offering came from the previous event. Changed to previousEvent.getVmSnapshotId().

2. Concurrent snapshot key collision: The unprocessedUsage map keyed entries by vmId + ":" + volId only, so concurrent snapshots of the same volume overwrote each other. Added vmSnapshotId to the key to distinguish them.

Root cause

From the issue body:

Net effect: the first snapshot's usage is credited to the second snapshot, and the first snapshot stops accruing usage even though it still exists and is Ready.

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache CloudStack community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
Here are some useful points:

• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (raise doc PR at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation)
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from the committers.
• Pay attention to the quality of your code, ensure tests are passing and your PR doesn't have conflicts.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Issues, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the CloudStack Coding Conventions.
  Apache CloudStack is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: [email protected] (https://cloudstack.apache.org/mailing-lists.html)
  Slack: https://apachecloudstack.slack.com/

[harikrishna-patnala]

thanks for the fix @waterWang, can you please change the branch 4.22 ?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 19.65%. Comparing base (d45d481) to head (6cf39e1).
⚠️ Report is 151 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../com/cloud/usage/parser/VMSnapshotUsageParser.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13924      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     19.65%   19.65%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    19801    19796       -5     
============================================
  Files          6368     6368              
  Lines        574913   574913              
  Branches      70352    70352              
============================================
- Hits         113024   112999      -25     
- Misses       449616   449643      +27     
+ Partials      12273    12271       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.41% <ø> (ø)
unittests	20.93% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[harikrishna-patnala]

I've added another PR targeting 4.22 branch #14308

cc @DaanHoogland

[DaanHoogland]

I've added another PR targeting 4.22 branch #14308

cc @DaanHoogland

ok, closing this one