Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

proxy: label kube_proxy test with more unique label #95337

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 28, 2020
Merged

proxy: label kube_proxy test with more unique label #95337

merged 1 commit into from Oct 28, 2020

Conversation

cmluciano
Copy link

Signed-off-by: Christopher M. Luciano cmluciano@us.ibm.com

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
The kube_proxy SIGDescribe previously only had Network in the title
and made it more difficult to select just the test cases in the
kube_proxy file and would end up running anything with Network in the
text area of SIGDescribe e2e tests.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:

  • It might make sense to instead use "Kube Proxy" instead of "Network Kube Proxy" but I stuck with the latter in case running a bunch of tests labelled with Network in the name is still desired.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 6, 2020
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/cc @aojea

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 6, 2020
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 6, 2020 •
edited

it LGTM but we should use the same name/tag in all tests that are kube-proxy only, so people can filter them out with their regexes, and not have to use a complicated regex-ginkgo.skip Kube-proxy|kube.proxy| ...

@jayunit100 You were exploring this recently, any idea/suggestion?

@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

cmluciano commented Oct 7, 2020 •
edited

@aojea @jayunit100 Please take a look at issue#95368 to identify all the tests we should label for kube-proxy

@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 13, 2020

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 13, 2020
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

passing locally with kind

@jayunit100
Copy link
Member

Sgtm but one tiny change suggestion before we pull the lever:

Since This might cause regression in some test suite skip/focus jobs people have though.

Is "kube-proxy Networking" a safer string then "kube-proxy" so that we guarantee not Breaking existing focus strings ?

No strong opinion either way if y'all wanna merge that's cool, just a thought.

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 21, 2020

Since This might cause regression in some test suite skip/focus jobs people have though.

they should be using [sig-network] , right?
I don't know exactly, but using Network only to filter should match more things or sound too brittle

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 22, 2020

/retest

@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/assign @andrewsykim

for approval

@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

I don't know exactly, but using Network only to filter should match more things or sound too brittle

Agree with this, and folks should be using [sig-network] for "Networking" tests. But I think @jayunit100 does have a good point about breaking existing filter matches. Do we need to worry about that or do we think it's pretty unlikely that someone is using just "Network" as a ginkgo filter instead of [sig-network]?

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 22, 2020 •
edited

🤔 this tag only applies to the 2 test that are contained within it, the [sig-network] tag is added here

kubernetes/test/e2e/network/framework.go

Lines 22 to 24 in 515f834

func SIGDescribe(text string, body func()) bool {
return ginkgo.Describe("[sig-network] "+text, body)
} 

test/e2e/network/ingress.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("Ingress API", func() {
test/e2e/network/kube_proxy.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("Network", func() {
test/e2e/network/ingressclass.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("IngressClass [Feature:Ingress]", func() {
test/e2e/network/ingressclass.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("IngressClass API", func() {
test/e2e/network/network_tiers.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("Services [Slow]", func() {
test/e2e/network/dns_scale_records.go:var _ = SIGDescribe("[Feature:PerformanceDNS][Serial]", func() {

@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

this tag only applies to the 2 test that are contained within it, the [sig-network] tag is added here

Good point

proxy: label kube_proxy test with more unique label
22b8cd5 
The kube_proxy SIGDescribe previously only had Network in the title
and made it more difficult to select just the test cases in the
kube_proxy file and would end up running anything with Network in the
text area of SIGDescribe e2e tests.

Signed-off-by: Christopher M. Luciano <cmluciano@us.ibm.com>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 23, 2020
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 26, 2020

/lgtm
/retest
@andrewsykim for approval

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 26, 2020
andrewsykim
andrewsykim reviewed Oct 27, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@andrewsykim andrewsykim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/approve
/lgtm

@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

/triage accepted
/priority important-soon

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. and removed needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 27, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andrewsykim, cmluciano

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 27, 2020
@cmluciano
Copy link
Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Oct 27, 2020

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

1 similar comment
@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 34ae231 into kubernetes:master Oct 28, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.20 milestone Oct 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@neolit123 neolit123 neolit123 left review comments

@andrewsykim andrewsykim andrewsykim left review comments

@aojea aojea Awaiting requested review from aojea

@freehan freehan Awaiting requested review from freehan

@johnbelamaric johnbelamaric Awaiting requested review from johnbelamaric

Assignees

@aojea aojea

@andrewsykim andrewsykim

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/test cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/network Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Network. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.20
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@cmluciano @aojea @jayunit100 @andrewsykim @k8s-ci-robot @fejta-bot @neolit123