Disable broken pd e2e test #85973
Disable broken pd e2e test #85973
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
|
@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews |
k8s-ci-robot
added
sig/storage
|
/priority important-soon |
k8s-ci-robot
added
priority/important-soon
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: msau42 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/retest |
| @@ -405,7 +407,7 @@ var _ = utils.SIGDescribe("Pod Disks", func() { | |||
| framework.ExpectEqual(numNodes, origNodeCnt, fmt.Sprintf("Requires current node count (%d) to return to original node count (%d)", numNodes, origNodeCnt)) | |||
| output, err = gceCloud.ListInstanceNames(framework.TestContext.CloudConfig.ProjectID, framework.TestContext.CloudConfig.Zone) | |||
| framework.ExpectNoError(err, fmt.Sprintf("Unable to get list of node instances err=%v output=%s", err, output)) | |||
| framework.ExpectEqual(false, strings.Contains(string(output), string(host0Name))) | |||
| framework.ExpectEqual(true, strings.Contains(string(output), string(host0Name))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we just block the code for disruptOp == deleteNode?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rather not run the test instead of running the test but having it pass when it doesn't actually work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also mean to not run the test, just think this whole part of code is not needed. It is ok if just leaving it for future change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I do want to re-enable the test again in the future
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
What type of PR is this?
/kind failing-test
What this PR does / why we need it:
There are some fundamental issues with this test that will take a complete rewrite to fix. Longer term, I also want to see if we can remove tests from this file and get similar coverage in a more provider-agnostic manner. So I'm just going to disable the test for now.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Addresses #85972
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: