tests: simplify monitoringdashboard test case, add to tests-e2e-direct

[justinsb]

Changing to a random display name is not very intuitive (and doesn't
get us much).

Also add this to tests-e2e-direct, so we verify the golden output

[acpana]

two quick points:

• this is not using the direct controller for monitoring yet
• we probably want to ignore the s-i-s: merge

I don't think we can do the same trick as the script.yaml annotations for absent since these are fixtures but will leave that up to you if you want to modify the yaml or add a code check (specifically for monitoring I think) for now.

( these are probably all items I could've done better 😛 )

[yuwenma]

Can you share more context about the "script.yaml and the trick" (just in case others may hit a problem)?

I thought this go test is a short path for LLM only: the KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS specifies to LLM and the run only lists LLM related tests.
If we want to run tests for different scifi controllers, maybe we shall separate it from here?

[acpana]

I don't think we can do the same trick as the script.yaml annotations for absent since these are fixtures

Oh I see, I think this comment was a bit confusing and I should've linked the code I had in mind 🤦🏼 Here's an example of using state-into-spec: absent inscript.yaml:

k8s-config-connector/tests/e2e/testdata/scenarios/direct/llm_immutable_field/labels_value_type/script.yaml

Lines 15 to 20 in 86a55f9

	apiVersion: logging.cnrm.cloud.google.com/v1beta1
	kind: LoggingLogMetric
	metadata:
	name: logginglogmetric-${uniqueId}
	annotations:
	cnrm.cloud.google.com/state-into-spec: absent

But again, I don't think we can use that here because the fixture tests are shared in test-e2e-fixtures today, and more importantly, in post submits.

I thought this go test is a short path for LLM only: the KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS specifies to LLM and the run only lists LLM related tests.

Yes I meant to highlight that in with this point:

• this is not using the direct controller for monitoring yet

So today, adding that would be a "no-op" and yes we would require a KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS flag when we actually want to use the direct controller. Moreover, I'd recommend we split out the LLM and other resources 😛

[justinsb]

Actually looks like I did most of this better in #1806, so let's get that one in first, then I'll rebase

/hold

[yuwenma]

Just to double check, do we want to run monitoringdashboard direct controller on the test "monitoringdashboard"? If so, I think we want to include the Kind name in KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS or using a different command (so you can  echo the steps more granularly)

[justinsb]

So I wanted to start by adding this to the "strict" tests where we check the golden output. Then I would add it to KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS, and we would be able to see the changes in behaviour (if any) at the http and at the KRM level.

I think what's going wrong is that we've turned off golden tests with KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS, and I don't think we should have done that.

[yuwenma]

Sounds good. With #1910 , those LLM tests should no longer need the KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS flag (and thanks for the cleanup in #1919).

When the monitoring dashboard is ready for the direct controller, you can simply remove the dcl2crd label (KCC_USE_DIRECT_RECONCILERS should also work but I think it less preferred for beta resource)

[yuwenma]

PR looks good. could you capture the latest log and I think this PR is ready to go!

[justinsb]

I think the flakes are due to races in the SLEEP approach, which was always intended as a temporary hack to be fixed in #1800. I updated that PR.

[justinsb]

#1800 has merged, so I think this is unblocked

/assign @yuwenma

/hold cancel

(Because that hold is very old!)

[yuwenma]

/lgtm
/approve

[google-oss-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yuwenma

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:

• OWNERS [yuwenma]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment