-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
OCPBUGS-62605: e2e: refactor GetSMTLevel to remove Gomega assertions #1399
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
Merged
openshift-merge-bot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:main
from
SargunNarula:refactor_getsmtlevel
Oct 1, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GinkgoHelper() in the first line will solve exactly that without having to change the function API
https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/#mental-model-how-ginkgo-handles-failure
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tal-or is very correct. In addition, that would allow us to remove the fragile
WithOffset
expectations (mostly my fault here).That said, changing the function signature and return an explicit error LGTM and I slightly prefer that approach for library code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tal-or If i understand correctly, if we used GinkgoHelper(), it would remove the panic and point the failure to Test itself, which originally is not the motive of the API change.
Considering a library function, it should work when called outside a test spec block, where it would panic. Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything here.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is considered to be panic? a go assertion? because it's expected to abort a test with an assertion in Ginkgo.
All GinkgoHelper() is doing is point to the caller of the function (in the stack trace), it's basically equal to call
Fail
with offset.this function scope is only for the NTO e2e test, it should not be imported into other projects and not even in the none-test code of this specific project, so assertion here is completely fine.
Bottom line, I don't mind whether this function return an errors or asserts, my initial comment was mainly for the sake of discussion and broadening the knowledge and expertise as part of the reviewing process.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I fully agree with this sentence
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess the remaining open point boils down to: where is this function planned to be used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ffromani Here is a use- case where this function was tend to be used - Link. Ignore the checkHyperthreding() for now as it is just a wrapper over getSMTLevel and would be removed once it itself gets fixed.