-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 292
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
🌱 test: Ensure finalizers are re-reconciled #2626
🌱 test: Ensure finalizers are re-reconciled #2626
Conversation
Hi @adityabhatia. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
1c696df
to
2f118bb
Compare
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ var ( | |||
|
|||
// cleanupVSphereObjects deletes the Secret, VSphereClusterIdentity, and VSphereDeploymentZone created for this test. | |||
// The VSphereFailureDomain, and the Secret for the VSphereClusterIdentity should be deleted as a result of the above. | |||
func cleanupVSphereObjects(ctx context.Context, bootstrapClusterProxy framework.ClusterProxy) bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed the boolean return value since linter was complaining, also I do not see any use.
test/e2e/finalizers_test.go
Outdated
// This check ensures that finalizers are resilient - i.e. correctly re-reconciled, when removed. | ||
framework.ValidateFinalizersResilience(ctx, proxy, namespace, clusterName, | ||
framework.CoreFinalizersAssertion, | ||
framework.KubeadmControlPlaneFinalizersAssertion, | ||
framework.ExpFinalizersAssertion, | ||
VSphereFinalizers, | ||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like the ownerreference test already has what we need (from object perspective).
Could we combine these two tests maybe to combine ownerreferences and finalizers in one test?
If I got it right its only about having all the objects and running framework.ValidateFinalizersResilience
as PostMachinesProvisioned
.
This would reduce the time needed for CI because bringing up cluster takes time and costs resources :-)
Or do you see points why we should not combine them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes combining these tests will surely make it more efficient, should also work (looks good locally).
I have purposely made a second commit to see the notable differences, before and after test combination and also renamed the flavor ownerreferences
-> ownerrefs-finalizers
which IMO reflects the purpose of the combined test. 42a1cff
Once these changes are reviewed I will squash my commits.
867f6f7
to
42a1cff
Compare
/ok-to-test |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2626 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.84% 64.56% -0.28%
==========================================
Files 118 118
Lines 8580 8580
==========================================
- Hits 5564 5540 -24
- Misses 2588 2605 +17
- Partials 428 435 +7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
--- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
these can get removed right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes this will also go away, it was just kept for reference. If you think the combined tests should be ok, I can push a squashed commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, please drop them 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(and feel free to squash)
42a1cff
to
1ed21bf
Compare
1ed21bf
to
55c9e2b
Compare
/test help |
@chrischdi: The specified target(s) for
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-full-main |
55c9e2b
to
033a3b8
Compare
/lgtm /test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-full-main |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 1dfa4428807feef34e3fa73b51a57d22cec8ec70
|
/assign @chrischdi |
@adityabhatia Can you please rebase? |
033a3b8
to
4f1352f
Compare
Thx! /assign @chrischdi |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: e1ba044833255598a86fcca143dc347523a4ca17
|
/approve |
1 similar comment
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: chrischdi, sbueringer The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR introduces finalizer resiliency checks - covering both initial presence and upon deletion cases using the CAPI e2e test framework.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes # #2357