add go:build no windows for some control-plane related UT for kubeadm

[pacoxu]

What type of PR is this?

/kind failing-test
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-jenkins/logs/ci-kubernetes-unit-windows-master/1569279943479660544

The failure

• etcd.local.dataDir: Invalid value: "/var/lib/etcd": path is not absolute

Add //go:build !windows to files below, as we always run work node on windows(no control plane node)

• cmd/kubeadm/app/cmd/certs_test.go (renew tests)
• cmd/kubeadm/app/phases/controlplane/*
• cmd/kubeadm/app/phases/etcd/

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

parts of #112619

Special notes for your reviewer:

Some more test failures

• common_test.go:386: unexpected failure: [certificatesDir: Invalid value: "/etc/kubernetes/pki": path is not absolute, etcd.local.dataDir: Invalid value: "/var/lib/etcd": path is not absolute]
• panic: the environment variable KUBEADM_PATH must point to the kubeadm binary path

• pki_helpers_test.go:573: unexpected certificate path: \foo\bar.csr
  

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

@pacoxu: 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.

[pacoxu]

When I look into https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html?text=kubeadm, most are about windows ut.

[neolit123]

/approve
@claudiubelu

could you please help us with review / lgtm here

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: neolit123, pacoxu

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:

• cmd/kubeadm/OWNERS [neolit123]

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

[pacoxu]

Other fixes for the CI can be found in https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/99/views/1

[neolit123]

another question here is - should we adapt the tests to work on windows instead of not compiling them?

[pacoxu]

another question here is - should we adapt the tests to work on windows instead of not compiling them?

In #111534, the fix is adding goruntime.GOOS != "windows" into the logic.

As we always run the work node on windows(no control plane node, correct me if I am wrong), I think some cases should never run on windows, so we can simply not compile them.

For other cases, I think we should adopt the tests and some are in progress of #111534 and #110863.

[neolit123]

yes, we do not support windows control planes yet. but actually there some discussions about it with sig windows.

one problem if we don't compile the tests is that if we eventually add windows cp support we will forget about these tests. using GOOS might be better here, but i haven't checked how much work it is.

if you think we should not compile and better to merge this pr, please add a comment in here
kubernetes/kubeadm#1393

[neolit123]

/lgtm
/hold
(please cancel the hold if ready to merge as is)

[pacoxu]

one problem if we don't compile the tests is that if we eventually add windows cp support we will forget about these tests. using GOOS might be better here, but i haven't checked how much work it is.

It can be easily reflected in code coverage with Windows easily like https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit later if we support windows cp.

/hold cancel
/retest