Write Pod- & ServiceProxy Test - +12 endpoint coverage #94786
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/test
sig/network
7 tasks
|
/assign @heyste |
heyste
force-pushed
the
proxy-301-redirect
branch
from
4e62fce
to
47e46c9
Compare
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd |
oomichi
reviewed
Sep 15, 2020
test/e2e/network/proxy.go
Outdated
| framework.ExpectNoError(err, "processing response") | ||
| defer resp.Body.Close() | ||
|
|
||
| framework.Logf("Processing %s request...", httpVerb) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: This Logf seems redundant because httpVerb is output on the following line 334.
test/e2e/network/proxy.go
Outdated
| framework.Logf("Request String: %v", r.URL().String()) | ||
| // Request returns 500 status - Can this be diabled? | ||
| _, err := r.Do(context.Background()).StatusCode(&statusCode).Raw() | ||
| framework.Logf("RESTClient() StatusCode: %d", statusCode) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just a question: Do we expect 500 as a status code here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was hoping to use the normal RESTClient to check that each request was being redirected. As the RESTClient auto follows the redirection it looks like using the http.Client is the only option to catch the 301 status code.
I'll remove that section of the test as it was more for reference/discussion point on why http.Client was needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that is a good idea. The removal will be able to make the test more clear and simple.
heyste
force-pushed
the
proxy-301-redirect
branch
2 times, most recently
from
98114d3
to
c07d671
Compare
|
IPv6 does not work because apiserver panics cc: @liggitt |
|
Thanks for the pointer @aojea Looks like the following code (from Line 294) doesn't work for IPv6. 😕 Looking at the IPv4 logs, the response codes is what it should be. but, IPv6 doesn't look like it's returning a 301 and just "auto follows" and then breaks |
|
issue is here: kubernetes/staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/proxy/upgradeaware.go Lines 165 to 168 in 19706d9 introduced in https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/52065/files#diff-16a26bb0d342318c6eb3d03e6c5756e9 something about the passed-in URL will not parse correctly, the error is not checked, and the parsed URL is nil |
|
added debug logging in #94832 |
|
apart from the test failure/panic issues, I am not sure these are tests we'd want in conformance. 301 proxy redirect is something being debated in kubernetes/enhancements#1908, and 301 responses on non-GET requests probably don't make sense to return, let alone add to conformance |
|
strangely, got a pass on the debug PR that added logging /retest pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
riaankleinhans
changed the title
riaankleinhans
changed the title
riaankleinhans
changed the title
|
/remove-sig testing |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
sig/testing
aojea
reviewed
Oct 19, 2021
test/e2e/network/proxy.go
Outdated
| Transport: restTransport, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // All methods for Pod ProxyWithPath return 200 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is ProxyWithPath a leftover from using the test as base of this?
framework.ConformanceIt("A set of valid responses are returned for both pod and service ProxyWithPath", func() {
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good spotting. Will update that comment.
aojea
reviewed
Oct 19, 2021
test/e2e/network/proxy.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| resp, err := client.Do(request) | ||
| framework.ExpectNoError(err, "processing response") | ||
| defer resp.Body.Close() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this will not close the Body until we exit the test, right?
There is also another client.Do below, should this be enclosed on brackets so the defer close the body before we move to the next step?
{
resp, err := client.Do(request)
framework.ExpectNoError(err, "processing response")
defer resp.Body.Close()
framework.Logf("http.Client request:%s StatusCode:%d", redirectVerb, resp.StatusCode)
framework.ExpectEqual(resp.StatusCode, 301, "The resp.StatusCode returned: %d", resp.StatusCode)
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After testing defer within a set of brackets they are processed still at the end of the function. I'll look at creating another function to contain each request to the pod and service endpoints.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Each request is now done from a new function validateRedirectRequest
heyste
force-pushed
the
proxy-301-redirect
branch
from
2026f0a
to
260288c
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
sig/testing
|
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind |
aojea
reviewed
Oct 20, 2021
test/e2e/network/proxy.go
Outdated
| framework.Logf("Starting http.Client for %s", urlString) | ||
|
|
||
| pollErr := wait.PollImmediate(requestRetryPeriod, requestRetryTimeout, validateProxyVerbRequest(client, urlString, httpVerb, msg)) | ||
| framework.ExpectNoError(err, "Pod didn't start within time out period. %v", pollErr) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| framework.ExpectNoError(err, "Pod didn't start within time out period. %v", pollErr) | |
| framework.ExpectNoError(pollErr, "Pod didn't start within time out period. %v", pollErr) |
we should check pollErr , right?
heyste
force-pushed
the
proxy-301-redirect
branch
from
260288c
to
8e39630
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, Riaankl 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
riaankleinhans
moved this from Done
to Promotion PRs Needing Two Weeks (flake free)
in conformance-definition
riaankleinhans
moved this from Promotion PRs Needing Two Weeks (flake free)
to Done
in conformance-definition
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a test to test the following untested endpoints:
connectCoreV1DeleteNamespacedPodProxy
connectCoreV1DeleteNamespacedServiceProxy
connectCoreV1OptionsNamespacedPodProxy
connectCoreV1OptionsNamespacedServiceProxy
connectCoreV1PatchNamespacedPodProxy
connectCoreV1PatchNamespacedServiceProxy
connectCoreV1PostNamespacedPodProxy
connectCoreV1PostNamespacedServiceProxy
connectCoreV1PutNamespacedPodProxy
connectCoreV1PutNamespacedServiceProxy
connectCoreV1HeadNamespacedPodProxy
onnectCoreV1HeadNamespacedServiceProxy
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #92949
Testgrid Link:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Adds +12 endpoint test coverage (good for conformance)
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Release note:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
/sig testing
/sig architecture
/area conformance