fix: Allow using raid_chunk_size for RAID pools and volumes

vojtechtrefny commented 1 year ago

Looks like we forgot raid_chunk_size when adding the pool/volume parameters checking.

codecov[bot] commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (6388626) 13.90% compared to head (5409385) 13.90%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #351 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 13.90% 13.90% ======================================= Files 8 8 Lines 1705 1705 Branches 71 71 ======================================= Hits 237 237 Misses 1468 1468 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | sanity | `16.54% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=linux-system-roles#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/linux-system-roles/storage/pull/351?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=linux-system-roles) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [library/blivet.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/linux-system-roles/storage/pull/351?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=linux-system-roles#diff-bGlicmFyeS9ibGl2ZXQucHk=) | `0.00% <ø> (ø)` | |

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.