-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.7k
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
Changed code to improve output for files under test/e2e/lifecycle #106226
Changed code to improve output for files under test/e2e/lifecycle #106226
Conversation
@NikhilSharmaWe: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The 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. |
Hi @NikhilSharmaWe. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
@pohly could you please review the changes made. |
@@ -83,7 +84,9 @@ var _ = lifecycle.SIGDescribe("[Feature:BootstrapTokens]", func() { | |||
cfgMap, err := f.ClientSet.CoreV1().ConfigMaps(metav1.NamespacePublic).Get(context.TODO(), bootstrapapi.ConfigMapClusterInfo, metav1.GetOptions{}) | |||
framework.ExpectNoError(err) | |||
signedToken, ok := cfgMap.Data[bootstrapapi.JWSSignatureKeyPrefix+tokenID] | |||
framework.ExpectEqual(ok, true) | |||
if !ok{ |
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.
if !ok{ | |
if !ok { |
4e29f41
to
fc0ec62
Compare
@pohly made changes according to your review. |
/ok-to-test |
/retest pull-kubernetes-integration failure looks like an unrelated test flake. |
/assign @neolit123 For approval. |
thanks /kind cleanup |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: neolit123, NikhilSharmaWe 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 |
What type of PR is this?
Enhancement
What this PR does / why we need it:
For better (more informative) output for developers when test fails. Changed test/e2e/lifecycle for this PR.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #105678
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: