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.

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

Fix operator_test CDI CR Gets #2577

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2023

Conversation

arnongilboa
Copy link
Collaborator

Signed-off-by: Arnon Gilboa agilboa@redhat.com

What this PR does / why we need it:
Get rid of the assumption that CR name is cdi, so tests won't be skippd when CR name is not cdi.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

NONE

Get rid of the assumption that CR name is cdi, so tests won't be skippd
when CR name is not cdi.

Signed-off-by: Arnon Gilboa <agilboa@redhat.com>
@kubevirt-bot kubevirt-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has DCO signed all their commits. labels Feb 7, 2023
cr := &cdis.Items[0]

return cr, cdiPods
Expect(cdis.Items).To(HaveLen(1))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so do we prefer that test will fail because they expect to have at least 1 cdi? or should we skip if len < 1 like somewhat done before:
if len(cdis.Items) < 1 {
Skip("CDI CR does not exist. Probably managed by another operator so skipping.")
}

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why would you run CDI func tests if you have no CDI on the cluster? failing looks good to me...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah it does seem weird lol I agree

@ShellyKa13
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@kubevirt-bot kubevirt-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 7, 2023
@akalenyu
Copy link
Collaborator

akalenyu commented Feb 7, 2023

/lgtm

Copy link
Member

@awels awels left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve

@kubevirt-bot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: awels

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

@kubevirt-bot kubevirt-bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 7, 2023
@kubevirt-bot kubevirt-bot merged commit 42ae2ab into kubevirt:main Feb 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has DCO signed all their commits. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants