e2e: fix flaky test 'should contain OpenAPI V3 for Aggregated APIServer'

[TommyStarK]

What type of PR is this?

/kind flake

What this PR does / why we need it:

If applied this commit will deflake the e2e test "should contain OpenAPI V3 for Aggregated APIServer"

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #117443

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @TommyStarK. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[TommyStarK]

Hello @aojea,
I tried to go with the simplest way without too messing with the e2e code with which I am not comfortable at all 😅 . If I misunderstood something or if you do not feel comfortable with this PR, please let me know.
I'll take time tomorrow to rebuild and re-run all the apimachinery e2e tests on a better computer.
Remaining at your disposal.

Best,

[aojea]

/ok-to-test

This duplication seems to be added here, please see #117443 for context
/assign @apelisse @lavalamp @Jefftree

[TommyStarK]

@aojea I found a way to give another name for the test 'OpenAPI V3 aggregated server' without messing too much with the existing code. Feel free to tell me if you do not feel comfortable with that approach or if you had something else in mind.

Best,

[apelisse]

Have you tried pinging the people who know the most about this? @Jefftree @alexzielenski

[apelisse]

Oh I see Jeff was pinged, good :-)

[TommyStarK]

Yes we did :) At your disposal if there is any change to make

[Jefftree]

Thanks for the fix! This is definitely better than forcing the two tests to run in serial.

LGTM

[Jefftree]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 01f350c2f654c05c712834b3073d81b44d18525f

[lavalamp]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Jefftree, lavalamp, TommyStarK

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/e2e/apimachinery/OWNERS [lavalamp]

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

[Jefftree]

I think it makes sense to also backport this to v1.27 once merged.

[TommyStarK]

If you want me to create the cherry-pick to backport it to 1.27, please tell me :) Thank you for the review

[TommyStarK]

CI failure does not seem to be related with my changes

/retest-required

[TommyStarK]

CI failure does not seem to be related with my changes

/retest-required

[fedebongio]

/triage accepted

[aojea]

Thanks