multiple rancher clients

[brudnak]

Purpose:

1. To enable testing more than a single Rancher instance at a time. This is needed to finally automate away the manual checks we do with Hosted/Tenant Rancher.

Backports:

• 2.9 [BP v2.9] multiple rancher clients #305
• 2.8 [BP v2.8] multiple rancher clients #306
• 2.7 [BP v2.7] multiple rancher clients #307

[susesgartner]

LGTM, I really like this idea. I do have one question: for your hosted/tenant testing you won't need the qase reporter to report to two different qase test runs right?

[caliskanugur]

Could we discuss this at one of the weekly design meeting?

I think I am out of context for this case, but is there a reason why it's not happening at the test level but at the client level?

So NewClient as it is accepts a bearerToken, so theoretically speaking, wouldn't this do the same thing?

a new config:

hostTenantTestConfig:
    tenant: bearertoken
    tenantHost: myhost.com

In the test:

hostClient := rancher.NewClient()

LoadAndUpdateConfig(tenantHost - for myhost.com)

tenantClient := rancher.NewClient(hostTenantTestConfig.tenant)

Couple things that I am curious about with this design:

• Currently it's per bearer token per client (as it accepts the param and if empty then checks the configuration file), but after the change, only the initial client will have this ability altough there can be multiple clients
• If the recursive configuration is picked, does NewClient need a change? Would a loop in RancherClients that instantiates NewClient for each recursive configuration be enough?

There's also a discussion about decoupling client from the configuration file and allowing accepting the configuration object to instantiate a client, which would eliminate the example's second step too

[brudnak]

LGTM, I really like this idea. I do have one question: for your hosted/tenant testing you won't need the qase reporter to report to two different qase test runs right?

No, I won't. A test case checking a host/tenant issue would be reported as a single test scenario, in Qase.

[igomez06]

This looks good, have you tested it Andrew?

[brudnak]

This looks good, have you tested it Andrew?

Thanks @igomez06! Yeah I've tested and posted the results in our internal communication

[igomez06]

LGTM

[caliskanugur]

There's a potential conflict with this PR: #296

Let's chat about which one goes first in the design meeting.

I think it looks good definitely fixing my recursive comment. My only comment is in the config, just because it's a slice, I want to learn more about how we identify which client is what