Remove the legacy Nginx testcases

[chendave]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[k8s-ci-robot]

@chendave: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

[chendave]

/release-note-none
/sig testing
/sig network

this is alternative to #108326

@aojea I haven't embed the ingress manifest in this pr. Some of the testcase like [sig-network] Loadbalancing: L7 GCE [Slow] [Feature:NEG] [Flaky] should be able to switch between IG and NEG modes still need the file in that directory, but consider those testcases can only run with "gce", "gke", maybe we can just let it be.

[chendave]

/retest

[danwinship]

You should probably split off the error→err fix into a separate PR since neither of the two commits here depends on the other, and they require different approvers because they're in different parts of the tree.

I can approve the network parts if someone else confirms that we actually do want to do this... it sounds like we're undecided about this vs #108326 right now

[aojea]

You should probably split off the error→err fix into a separate PR since neither of the two commits here depends on the other, and they require different approvers because they're in different parts of the tree.

I can approve the network parts if someone else confirms that we actually do want to do this... it sounds like we're undecided about this vs #108326 right now

discussion is here, it's ok to remove them
#108324 (comment)

nginx ingress has its own CI and nobody is maintaining these tests, when ingress deprecated beta I had to disable them because the project didn't supported the v1 API 🤷

[aojea]

👀

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gci-gce-ipvs

[aojea]

ahh, the ingress job passed

pull-kubernetes-e2e-gci-gce-ingress — Job succeeded.                     BaseSHA:f10cd679eb5f5805cb6bdf1fabc19d918affac80

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aojea, chendave

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:

• test/e2e/framework/OWNERS [aojea]
• test/e2e/network/OWNERS [aojea]

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

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

• The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
• The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
• The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
• The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
• The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

• Review the full test history for this PR
• Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
• Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest

[jefferycline1]

Renovate scheduling automatic. 5 pm everyday.