test/e2e/common/node: enhance assertions

[jwtty]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Better output for developers when tests fail.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes part of #105678

Special notes for your reviewer:

After this PR:

.../kubernetes/test/e2e/common/node$ git grep 'Expect.*Equal([^,]*, *\(true\|false\)' | wc -l
0

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @jwtty!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kubernetes 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kubernetes has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @jwtty. 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 /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.

[jwtty]

/assign @pohly

[pohly]

/ok-to-test

Thanks for taking care of this. Some initial comments, still need to go through the entire diff...

[pohly]

We don't have good pretty-printing of API objects. Gomega's format.Object indents them nicely, but prints empty fields. There's a discussion going elsewhere about that.

I don't have a strong opinion about printf-style format strings. Can you perhaps try out which looks best (%s, %+v, %#v)?

[pohly]

If we print as a single line, the printing the two objects on top of each other is easier to compare:
"Leases don't match. Expected:\n\t%s\nActual:\n\t%s"

[jwtty]

I wrote a piece of code to experiment:

s1 := spec{
		HolderIdentity:       sPtr("holder"),
		LeaseDurationSeconds: iPtr(30),
		AcquireTime:          &microTime{Time: time.Time{}.Add(2 * time.Second)},
		RenewTime:            &microTime{Time: time.Time{}.Add(5 * time.Second)},
		LeaseTransitions:     iPtr(0),
}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", s1)
fmt.Println("=====================")
fmt.Printf("%s\n", s1)
fmt.Println("=====================")
fmt.Printf("%+v", s1)

And result is:

main.spec{HolderIdentity:(*string)(0xc000010250), LeaseDurationSeconds:(*int32)(0xc000018030), AcquireTime:time.Date(1, time.January, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, time.UTC), RenewTime:time.Date(1, time.January, 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, time.UTC), LeaseTransitions:(*int32)(0xc000018034)}
=====================
{%!s(*string=0xc000010250) %!s(*int32=0xc000018030) 0001-01-01 00:00:02 +0000 UTC 0001-01-01 00:00:05 +0000 UTC %!s(*int32=0xc000018034)}
=====================
{HolderIdentity:0xc000010250 LeaseDurationSeconds:0xc000018030 AcquireTime:0001-01-01 00:00:02 +0000 UTC RenewTime:0001-01-01 00:00:05 +0000 UTC LeaseTransitions:0xc000018034}

I personally prefer the %+v output, informative enough and not too long. What do you think?

[pohly]

I agree, let's use that.

[pohly]

However, it won't help to diagnose the problem. It's better than before, but not good enough. For example, if HolderIdentity is different, then the output will just show the addresses, not the string.

Perhaps Failf should show the result of https://github.com/google/go-cmp?

[endocrimes]

go-cmp would be much better there 👍

[jwtty]

I switched to use go-cmp.

[endocrimes]

This is much uglier code for not a meaningful test output improvement but logic looks fine.

We should consider ExpectTrue/ExpectFalse helpers that can skip the slightly uglier comparison output, but not litter the code base with if THING { fail... }.

[endocrimes]

/triage accepted
/priority backlog

[pohly]

This is much uglier code

I think that's subjective. I find the if check easier to read than the ExpectEqual(xxx, true/false).

for not a meaningful test output improvement

It might not have more meaning, but it's at least less distracting because it is just the failure message without the "expected false to be true" boilerplate.

FWIW, I agree with your suggestions to enhance the failure messages while touching the code.

[jwtty]

Thanks for the comments. I'm working on improving the error msgs.

[endocrimes]

/approve
/lgtm

thank you!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: endocrimes, jwtty

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/common/OWNERS [endocrimes]

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

[pohly]

/retest

[pohly]

/retest