🌱 cache: add replication tests for WorkspaceType resource #2578
Conversation
| "replicate-workspace-type", | ||
| "WorkspaceType", | ||
| tenancyv1alpha1.SchemeGroupVersion.WithResource("workspacetypes"), | ||
| &tenancyv1alpha1.WorkspaceType{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: "replicate-workspace-type"}, Spec: tenancyv1alpha1.WorkspaceTypeSpec{}}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on the next iteration, we could change the scenarios to only provide a resource and some type information.
| // The test exercises creation, modification and removal of the Shard object. | ||
| func replicateWorkspaceTypeScenario(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, server framework.RunningServer, kcpShardClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface, cacheKcpClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface) { | ||
| t.Helper() | ||
| replicateResource(ctx, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the bottom line is that now a new scenario requires calling replicateResource
| // The test exercises creation, modification and removal of the resource. | ||
| func replicateResource(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, | ||
| server framework.RunningServer, kcpShardClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface, cacheKcpClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface, | ||
| clusterName logicalcluster.Name, resourceName string, kind string, gvr schema.GroupVersionResource, res runtime.Object, resWithModifiedSpec runtime.Object) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a lot of parameters for a function, some of them are not specific, e.g: server, kcpShardClusterDynamicClient, cacheKcpClusterDynamicClient.
Others are specific to a testScenario, e.g.: t, gvr
It feels like it would be possible to reduce the number of parameters that need to be provided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, an alternative would be to provide a struct but filling all required fields would at the calling line look the same (almost) as providing params. I will try to think about how it could be changed.
| "APIExport", | ||
| apisv1alpha1.SchemeGroupVersion.WithResource("apiexports"), | ||
| &apisv1alpha1.APIExport{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: "wild.wild.west"}}, | ||
| &apisv1alpha1.APIExport{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: "wild.wild.west"}, Spec: apisv1alpha1.APIExportSpec{LatestResourceSchemas: []string{"foo.bar"}}}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like having the resource definitions outside of the call to replicateResource may improve the readability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, maybe we could bring them closer to the place where we define scenarios
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm not sure exactly how it should look, I will try to think about it and change it on the next iteration
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now could you have the fields on a new line like in replicateAPIExportNegativeScenario?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // replicateAPIResourceSchemaScenario tests if an APIResourceSchema is propagated to the cache server. | ||
| // The test exercises creation, modification and removal of the APIResourceSchema object. | ||
| func replicateAPIResourceSchemaScenario(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, server framework.RunningServer, kcpShardClusterClient kcpclientset.ClusterInterface, cacheKcpClusterClient kcpclientset.ClusterInterface) { | ||
| func replicateAPIResourceSchemaScenario(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, server framework.RunningServer, kcpShardClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface, cacheKcpClusterDynamicClient kcpdynamic.ClusterInterface) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be nice to have a few lines of comment to describe what needs to be done to test the replication of a new resource.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i will add it to the generic functions
p0lyn0mial
force-pushed
the
replication-e2e-workspace-type
branch
from
c18419a
to
7db7403
Compare
|
/lgtm I think it is a good improvement compared to what we have. |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sttts 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
Summary
Related issue(s)
replaces #2449