Register openstack provider for e2e test

[oomichi]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Since the commit f3d79e1
openstack provider has been denied on e2e test runner.
However there are storage e2e tests which are related to
openstack. So this adds the registration of openstack
provider for e2e test.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #74326

Special notes for your reviewer:

This change is tested on my local OpenStack environment.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

[oomichi]

/sig openstack

[oomichi]

/cc @dims
/cc @hogepodge

[neolit123]

thanks @oomichi , we did remove support for unknown providers in that PR.
/lgtm
/priority important-soon

[dims]

/approve

thanks @oomichi

[dims]

@oomichi please work with @mrhillsman and @kiwik to set up a e2e for storage in OpenLab (and report results to testgrid)

[oomichi]

@dims OK, thanks for organizing us. @mrhillsman is helping me for understanding it.

[BenTheElder]

why are we not just using skeleton or local?

[BenTheElder]

this provider does nothing, this is the same as skeleton, why would we not just use skeleton?

[oomichi]

@BenTheElder That is a nice point.
Some storage e2e tests contain cloud provider specific tests like

kubernetes/test/e2e/storage/volume_provisioning.go

Line 375 in f7a6b0a

// OpenStack generic tests (works on all OpenStack deployments)

If using skeleton, we cannot operate these OpenStack specific tests.
That is a reason why I proposed this PR.

[neolit123]

this hits the long-term planning problem of how to break out providers from the e2e testing framework too. for now i'd say add the nullprovider = openstack back.

[oomichi]

Yeah, that also is a nice point. I guess we might need to implement cloud-provider specific e2e tests on each cloud-provider repo in long-term.

[BenTheElder]

I am -1 on this, unless we want to let everyone add their Null provider to the binary we should tell people to use skeleton.

[dims]

good point @BenTheElder

@oomichi can you please confirm why we need "openstack" registered with a NullProvider?

/hold

[neolit123]

I am -1 on this, unless we want to let everyone add their Null provider to the binary we should tell people to use skeleton.

indeed.

However there are storage e2e tests which are related to
openstack. So this adds the registration of openstack
provider for e2e test.

just modify the test jobs to pass --provider=skeleton?

[oomichi]

To avoid missing my comment, I am putting the same one here:

@BenTheElder That is a nice point.
Some storage e2e tests contain cloud provider specific tests like

kubernetes/test/e2e/storage/volume_provisioning.go

Line 375 in f7a6b0a

// OpenStack generic tests (works on all OpenStack deployments)

If using skeleton, we cannot operate these OpenStack specific tests.
That is a reason why I proposed this PR.

[BenTheElder]

I see thank you @oomichi that seems like a good reason for now. This will be interesting to figure out long term.

[oomichi]

@BenTheElder Thank you for your reply.
I am guessing we would implement e2e test framework as a library and re-use it in different repos in long-term. This idea comes from #74352

[dims]

/hold cancel

thanks @oomichi

[spiffxp]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dims, oomichi, spiffxp

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/OWNERS [spiffxp]

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