🌱 Validating the warnings in tests

[Dhairya-Arora01]

What this PR does / why we need it: To validate the warnings in webhook unit tests

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 #8732

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @Dhairya-Arora01. 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 /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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.

[Dhairya-Arora01]

/hold

[killianmuldoon]

/ok-to-test

[sbueringer]

@Dhairya-Arora01 Looks good so far, that's what I meant!

[sbueringer]

/assign @jackfrancis

[Dhairya-Arora01]

/test pull-cluster-api-test-main

[Dhairya-Arora01]

/hold cancel

[jackfrancis]

@Dhairya-Arora01 this looks gook, thanks!

Are there any "negative" test cases we can create for these warning responses? The equivalent of g.Expect(err).To(HaveOccurred()) for errors?

I assume we'll have to author new cases as the existing set of UT that you've backfilled w/ warnings responses are all nil.

[Dhairya-Arora01]

@jackfrancis , So we need to write those cases where the warnings are not nil ?

[sbueringer]

@Dhairya-Arora01 this looks gook, thanks!

Are there any "negative" test cases we can create for these warning responses? The equivalent of g.Expect(err).To(HaveOccurred()) for errors?

I assume we'll have to author new cases as the existing set of UT that you've backfilled w/ warnings responses are all nil.

99% of our webhooks do not return any warnings in any case. Which makes sense as before CR v0.15 it was not possible to return warnings

[Dhairya-Arora01]

@sbueringer , so we need to look for those 1% ?? and write negative test cases for those

[sbueringer]

Now had time to look it up. Here's the 1% #8746. I thought it's already merged but it isn't.

So we're good

[Dhairya-Arora01]

@sbueringer so we should wait for that pr to get merged?? or should we move on and after it gets merged open another one

[sbueringer]

I think we should move on with this PR. If we want to change unit tests of the code introduced in #8746, this should be discussed and adressed in #8746.

[sbueringer]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8e21a151c21de6c98d23fad69cdbec7936d5a002

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 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:

• OWNERS [sbueringer]

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

[johannesfrey]

/area testing