Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration #80824

damemi · 2019-07-31T20:20:32Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
Following #80821, this moves the e2e test checking pod priority resolution to integration to free up e2e resources

NONE

/sig scheduling

damemi · 2019-07-31T20:20:43Z

/cc @ravisantoshgudimetla

test/integration/scheduler/preemption_test.go

alculquicondor · 2019-08-02T15:42:17Z

It looks like this is flaky?

/hold

damemi · 2019-08-05T19:57:59Z

/retest

alculquicondor · 2019-08-06T13:26:03Z

Even if the test passes after retrying, I would be opposed to merge this. We shouldn't be introducing a test that is flaky.

damemi · 2019-08-06T15:13:42Z

@alculquicondor yeah, I just wanted to see if I could get a better idea of the flake after retrying. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Since this is currently an e2e test, I'm not sure where the flakiness is introduced in moving it. We would like to move some of these e2e's to integration in this manner, so if I can learn how that should be done without introducing flakes it would be very helpful

alculquicondor · 2019-08-06T16:09:20Z

Looking at other tests, it looks like you have to create a node before running the pod.
You should be able to run integration tests locally fairly easy. Add src/k8s.io/kubernetes/third_party/etcd to your PATH

ravisantoshgudimetla

This LGTM

/cc @bsalamat

damemi · 2019-08-29T19:35:37Z

/test pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ipv6

damemi · 2019-08-30T13:09:13Z

/retest

Huang-Wei · 2019-09-12T03:56:15Z

test/e2e/scheduling/preemption.go

@@ -221,43 +221,6 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("SchedulerPreemption [Serial]", func() {
 	})
 })

-var _ = SIGDescribe("PodPriorityResolution [Serial]", func() {


May I know why you want to remove this e2e test? Due to portability?

The goal was to try to lower e2e load, for example in OpenShift these tests get flaky with a lot of other resources running so @ravisantoshgudimetla wanted to move as many e2e to integration as we could (with a few exceptions)

damemi · 2019-09-12T13:02:51Z

/retest

damemi · 2019-09-18T17:19:11Z

Bumping, this is green in CI so wondering if there is any more feedback to it?

test/integration/scheduler/preemption_test.go

test/e2e/scheduling/preemption.go

test/integration/scheduler/preemption_test.go

alculquicondor · 2019-09-18T17:56:31Z

test/integration/scheduler/preemption_test.go

+				Namespace:         metav1.NamespaceSystem,
+				PriorityClassName: scheduling.SystemClusterCritical,
+			}),
+		},


Add a negative case? one for an unknown priority, and expect the scheduler to fail?

Similar to my above reply, we're not setting integer values, we are setting a string and checking that it resolves to an integer, so I can't add a negative value check but I can add one for an unknown string and check that it resolves to nothing if you want. What do you think?

Sorry, I didn't mean a negative number, just a negative case, i.e. a case that should be rejected.

Ah, I see then I misunderstood. I added a case for an invalid priority that should be rejected

damemi · 2019-09-20T13:13:48Z

/retest

damemi · 2019-09-20T14:44:34Z

@alculquicondor updated with your feedback, please let me know if there are any other changes you'd like

alculquicondor · 2019-09-20T15:26:06Z

/lgtm

damemi · 2019-09-20T17:31:03Z

/hold cancel

ravisantoshgudimetla

/approve

Thanks for the PR @damemi

deads2k · 2019-09-20T17:57:23Z

/approve

the admission update for integration test

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-09-20T17:57:35Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: damemi, deads2k, ravisantoshgudimetla

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:

~~plugin/pkg/admission/OWNERS~~ [deads2k]
~~test/e2e/scheduling/OWNERS~~ [deads2k,ravisantoshgudimetla]
~~test/integration/scheduler/OWNERS~~ [deads2k,ravisantoshgudimetla]

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 requested review from resouer and wgliang July 31, 2019 20:20

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from ravisantoshgudimetla July 31, 2019 20:20

k8s-ci-robot added area/test sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. labels Jul 31, 2019

damemi mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2019

Remove duplicate scheduler anti-affinity preemption e2e #80821

Merged

ravisantoshgudimetla reviewed Jul 31, 2019

View reviewed changes

test/integration/scheduler/preemption_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch 2 times, most recently from 1c31c2e to 35a372a Compare August 1, 2019 18:16

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 2, 2019

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from 35a372a to a21098a Compare August 7, 2019 15:25

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 7, 2019

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from a21098a to 4fafd76 Compare August 7, 2019 16:07

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from 4fafd76 to 7830622 Compare August 26, 2019 20:17

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 26, 2019

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from 7830622 to 9e8b58d Compare August 26, 2019 20:21

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 26, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla reviewed Aug 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from bsalamat August 29, 2019 17:11

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from 30a077a to af44f08 Compare August 29, 2019 19:03

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from af44f08 to c6bacc7 Compare September 11, 2019 18:14

Huang-Wei reviewed Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

alculquicondor reviewed Sep 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch 5 times, most recently from 821a39a to 118547b Compare September 19, 2019 23:46

Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration

ca18b48

damemi force-pushed the preemption-e2e-to-integration branch from 118547b to ca18b48 Compare September 20, 2019 00:25

k8s-ci-robot assigned alculquicondor Sep 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 20, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla approved these changes Sep 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot merged commit c7619bd into kubernetes:master Sep 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.17 milestone Sep 20, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration #80824

Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration #80824

damemi commented Jul 31, 2019

damemi commented Jul 31, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 2, 2019

damemi commented Aug 5, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 6, 2019

damemi commented Aug 6, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 6, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla left a comment

damemi commented Aug 29, 2019

damemi commented Aug 30, 2019

Huang-Wei Sep 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

damemi Sep 12, 2019

damemi commented Sep 12, 2019

damemi commented Sep 18, 2019

alculquicondor Sep 18, 2019

damemi Sep 19, 2019

alculquicondor Sep 19, 2019

damemi Sep 19, 2019

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

alculquicondor commented Sep 20, 2019

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla left a comment

deads2k commented Sep 20, 2019 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2019

Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration #80824

Move PodPriorityResolution e2e to integration #80824

Conversation

damemi commented Jul 31, 2019

damemi commented Jul 31, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 2, 2019

damemi commented Aug 5, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 6, 2019

damemi commented Aug 6, 2019

alculquicondor commented Aug 6, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi commented Aug 29, 2019

damemi commented Aug 30, 2019

Huang-Wei Sep 12, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi Sep 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi commented Sep 12, 2019

damemi commented Sep 18, 2019

alculquicondor Sep 18, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi Sep 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alculquicondor Sep 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi Sep 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

alculquicondor commented Sep 20, 2019

damemi commented Sep 20, 2019

ravisantoshgudimetla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

deads2k commented Sep 20, 2019 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2019

Huang-Wei Sep 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

deads2k commented Sep 20, 2019 •

edited

Loading