-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
MON-3775: add tests for the MetricsCollectionProfiles
feature-gate
#28889
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@rexagod: This pull request references MON-3775 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.17.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
@deads2k Following up on #28768 (comment), I dropped I'm able to include my tests in the generated manifests using |
} | ||
}) | ||
g.It("should hide a default-only metric when minimal collection profile is enabled", func() { | ||
defaultOnlyMetric := "kube_deployment_status_replicas" |
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.
can we pick a Prometheus metric which we know for sure will (likely) never be present in the minimal profile (for instance prometheus_engine_query_log_enabled
).
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 9c556df
|
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview Updated manifests. |
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 49dd188
|
}) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
var _ = g.Context("in an environment that has the minimal profile pre-set", func() { |
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.
I have to again point out I'm not a ginko expert, but shouldn't this context have a BeforeAll
node to apply the minimal profile? Iiuc the intention is that ginko can reorder context nodes as it sees fit, so I'm not sure this will succeed in all cases. This currently relies on the previous context to apply the minimal profile.
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.
The documentation mentions that Context
(alias for Describe
) supports decorators (i.e., the Ordered
parameter being passed here) while nesting more containers internally. The containers seem to execute as they appear (among other "weights" that work towards the same affect, and ID
s, in case of It
s).
I believe that as long as the structure is maintained, things should happen as expected. But LMK if this seems prone to manual oversight and I'll add those in.
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.
Ahh I missed that. Should we maybe have a comment preceding the context so future readers don't miss this like I did?
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
/retest-required |
}) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
var _ = g.Context("in an environment that has the minimal profile pre-set", func() { |
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.
Ahh I missed that. Should we maybe have a comment preceding the context so future readers don't miss this like I did?
Testcases breaking after rebase, in addition to the Ginkgo's earlier |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: a86de08
|
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 889ca0f
|
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview |
/test e2e-aws-ovn-ipsec-serial None of the tests affect cc @jan--f for |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: da1d01a
|
/lgtm |
Anyone reviewing the failures in e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview-serial?
|
/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview-serial |
/test e2e-aws-ovn-single-node-techpreview |
@neisw The test quoted here ran on AFAICT looking at the JUnit output, none of the logs in the currently failing jobs seem to be related to any of the tests introduced here. IIRC e2e-aws-ovn-ipsec-serial was the only failing job here most recently, but I'll trigger them all again and check for flakes stemming from here, just to be sure. |
/retest |
Thanks @rexagod - Just seemed worth double checking since this is targeting techpreview. Did note that run was from a few commits back. Likely not related but appreciate the recheck. |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: da1d01a
|
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jan--f, neisw, rexagod 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 |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: da1d01a
|
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: da1d01a
|
Refer: openshift/enhancements#1298 Signed-off-by: Pranshu Srivastava <rexagod@gmail.com>
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
r := &runner{} | ||
|
||
g.BeforeAll(func() { | ||
if !exutil.IsTechPreviewNoUpgrade(tctx, oc.AdminConfigClient()) { |
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.
Signature changed during rebase, so modified this (from exutil.IsTechPreviewNoUpgrade(oc)
.
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 0bd6a90
|
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 0bd6a90
|
/retest-required |
@rexagod: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 0bd6a90
|
1 similar comment
Job Failure Risk Analysis for sha: 0bd6a90
|
OEP: openshift/enhancements#1298
/cc @simonpasquier