WIP: testing: make apiserver-based tests context-aware

[pohly]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

This enables per-test output.

Special notes for your reviewer:

test/e2e_node/runner/remote/run_remote.go no longer needs to
add klog flags itself, ktesting takes care of that.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[k8s-ci-robot]

Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.30 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.30.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Thu Mar 28 02:11:27 UTC 2024.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pohly
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign deads2k, thockin for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• cmd/kube-apiserver/OWNERS
• pkg/controller/OWNERS
• pkg/controlplane/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/apiextensions-apiserver/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/cloud-provider/controllers/service/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/kube-aggregator/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/sample-apiserver/OWNERS
• staging/src/k8s.io/sample-controller/OWNERS
• test/OWNERS [pohly]

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]

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

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.

[pohly]

@mengjiao-liu, @aojea : style question...

My goal is to let StartTestServer handle the TContext and client set creation and tear-down. That makes it possible to remove some common boilerplate code that appears in all integration tests.

Should that TContext get returned inline as part of TestServer (as shown above) or as a separate return value?

When it's inline, test code looks like this:

func TestEndpointUpdates(t *testing.T) {
	// Disable ServiceAccount admission plugin as we don't have serviceaccount controller running.
	server := kubeapiservertesting.StartTestServerOrDie(t, nil, []string{"--disable-admission-plugins=ServiceAccount"}, framework.SharedEtcd())
	client := server.Client()
	informers := informers.NewSharedInformerFactory(client, 0)
	tCtx := server.TContext
        epController := endpoint.NewEndpointController(
                tCtx,
...

diff --git a/test/integration/endpoints/endpoints_test.go b/test/integration/endpoints/endpoints_test.go
index e1aee518c02..3cebed7b394 100644
--- a/test/integration/endpoints/endpoints_test.go
+++ b/test/integration/endpoints/endpoints_test.go
@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ import (
        "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/intstr"
        "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait"
        "k8s.io/client-go/informers"
-       clientset "k8s.io/client-go/kubernetes"
        kubeapiservertesting "k8s.io/kubernetes/cmd/kube-apiserver/app/testing"
        "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/controller/endpoint"
        "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration/framework"
@@ -38,17 +37,10 @@ import (
 func TestEndpointUpdates(t *testing.T) {
        // Disable ServiceAccount admission plugin as we don't have serviceaccount controller running.
        server := kubeapiservertesting.StartTestServerOrDie(t, nil, []string{"--disable-admission-plugins=ServiceAccount"}, framework.SharedEtcd())
-       defer server.TearDownFn()
-
-       client, err := clientset.NewForConfig(server.ClientConfig)
-       if err != nil {
-               t.Fatalf("Error creating clientset: %v", err)
-       }
-
+       client := server.Client()
        informers := informers.NewSharedInformerFactory(client, 0)
 
-       tCtx := ktesting.Init(t)
-       defer tCtx.Cancel("test completed")
+       tCtx := server.TContext
        epController := endpoint.NewEndpointController(
                tCtx,
                informers.Core().V1().Pods(),

When it's separate:

func TestEndpointUpdates(t *testing.T) {
	// Disable ServiceAccount admission plugin as we don't have serviceaccount controller running.
	tCtx, server := kubeapiservertesting.StartTestServerOrDie(t, nil, []string{"--disable-admission-plugins=ServiceAccount"}, framework.SharedEtcd())
	client := tCtx.Client()
	informers := informers.NewSharedInformerFactory(client, 0)
        epController := endpoint.NewEndpointController(
                tCtx,
...

I'm leaning towards separate return values. The only downside is that all callers need to be updated, but I want to do that anyway.