Bug 1871170: test/e2e: add etcdctl sanity test

[hexfusion]

let's not get bugs because we are not testing simple things. this test exposes a few bugs and should keep us honest moving forward.

[retroflexer]

/test e2e

[openshift-ci-robot]

@hexfusion: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-operator	9c0e272	link	/test e2e-operator
ci/prow/e2e-disruptive	9c0e272	link	/test e2e-disruptive
ci/prow/e2e	9c0e272	link	/test e2e

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[ironcladlou]

/retitle Bug 1871170: test/e2e: add etcdctl sanity test

[openshift-ci-robot]

@hexfusion: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1871170, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target release (4.7.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.7.0)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1871170: test/e2e: add etcdctl sanity test

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.

[ironcladlou]

I'm not really persuaded of the value of introducing testify in this PR:

switch {
case err != nil && len(tc.expectedError) != 0 && !strings.Contains(string(actual), tc.expectedError):
  require.NoError(t, fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %q", actual))
}

vs

switch {
case err != nil && len(tc.expectedError) != 0 && !strings.Contains(string(actual), tc.expectedError):
  t.Fatalf(fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %w", actual))
}

More indirection, requires learning another library, not sure what it adds.

[retroflexer]

/retest

[hexfusion]

I'm not really persuaded of the value of introducing testify in this PR:

switch {
case err != nil && len(tc.expectedError) != 0 && !strings.Contains(string(actual), tc.expectedError):
  require.NoError(t, fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %q", actual))
}

vs

switch {
case err != nil && len(tc.expectedError) != 0 && !strings.Contains(string(actual), tc.expectedError):
  t.Fatalf(fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %w", actual))
}

More indirection, requires learning another library, not sure what it adds.

I was hoping we could move to this as a standard for operator e2e. If the standard is adhered to it would give a clean pattern for future testing. Currently, I feel like we hand roll a lot of what testify provides. But I am open to other thoughts, libraries for this use.

cc @marun

[marun]

I was hoping we could move to this as a standard for operator e2e. If the standard is adhered to it would give a clean pattern for future testing. Currently, I feel like we hand roll a lot of what testify provides. But I am open to other thoughts, libraries for this use.

cc @marun

I'm a big +1 for testify. It's already used in some group b operators like ckao as well as in upstream kube. It provides most of the benefits of ginkgo's helpers without incurring declarative/imperative confusion.

Full benefit, though, often requires a rewrite:

if len(tc.expectedError) > 0 {
  require.Contains(string(actual), tc.expectedError, "expected error not reported: %q", tc.expectedError)
else {
  require.NoError(t, actual)
}

[openshift-merge-robot]

@hexfusion: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-agnostic	9c0e272	link	/test e2e-agnostic
ci/prow/e2e-disruptive	9c0e272	link	/test e2e-disruptive
ci/prow/e2e-operator	9c0e272	link	/test e2e-operator

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[hexfusion]

updated @marun PTAL

[openshift-ci]

@hexfusion: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-disruptive	8b19b50	link	/test e2e-disruptive

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[marun]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hexfusion, marun

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:

• OWNERS [hexfusion]

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

[openshift-bot]

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@hexfusion: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/cluster-etcd-operator#456

Bugzilla bug 1871170 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1871170: test/e2e: add etcdctl sanity test

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.