Multiple pool cypress test migration #7616

GowthamShanmugam · 2020-12-21T15:26:28Z

Signed-off-by: Gowtham Shanmugasundaram gshanmug@localhost.localdomain

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-21T15:26:51Z

Hi @GowthamShanmugam. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:02:14Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+
+    // Check ceph cluster status
+    cy.exec(`oc get cephCluster -n ${NS} -o json`).then((res) => {
+      const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout.toString());


Suggested change

const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout.toString());

const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout);

I don't think if toSting() is required.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:02:43Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+
+    // View create storage class form


Suggested change

// View create storage class form

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:03:09Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  });
+
+  afterEach(() => {
+    checkErrors();


Suggested change

checkErrors();

cy.checkErrors();

If you do it this way you won't have to add an import statement.

But cy dont have any function with name checkErrors

my bad it was previously a cypress command looks like it's no more.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:04:10Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  });
+
+  it('Check for a new pool creation', () => {
+    if (cephStatus?.status?.phase === CLUSTER_STATUS.READY) {


How are we ending up with a state when Ceph Cluster isn't in Ready?

I think this check is to handle to corner case, as storage cluster creation takes a longer time than usual and parallelly if someone tries to create the pool.

Anyway, cy.install() always make sure the cluster is in a ready state. So I remove this block.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:06:29Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+    } else if (cephStatus?.status?.phase !== CLUSTER_STATUS.READY) {
+        // This block will execute only if cluster is not in ready state
+        cy.log('Trying to create a new pool when cluster is not in ready state');
+        storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);
+
+        // Validations
+        storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "PROGRESS"));
+        // Close pool creation form
+        cy.byTestID(cancelAction).click();
+    };


Suggested change

} else if (cephStatus?.status?.phase !== CLUSTER_STATUS.READY) {

// This block will execute only if cluster is not in ready state

cy.log('Trying to create a new pool when cluster is not in ready state');

storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);

// Validations

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "PROGRESS"));

// Close pool creation form

cy.byTestID(cancelAction).click();

};

} else if (cephStatus?.status?.phase !== CLUSTER_STATUS.READY) {

// This block will execute only if cluster is not in ready state

cy.log('Trying to create a new pool when cluster is not in ready state');

storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);

// Validations

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "PROGRESS"));

// Close pool creation form

cy.byTestID(cancelAction).click();

};

I realize this is a part of the original tests. But I am not sure why we are doing this check? How can we enforce that Ceph CLuster is indeed in a Progressing state. Not knowing the exact state of the application can be a source of flakes. Tagging @a2batic to understand more about this test.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:08:48Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  it('Should throw an error if duplicate pool is created', () => {
+    cy.log('Try to creating a new pool with already existing name');
+    storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);
+    storagePool.create(poolName, replicaCount);
+
+    // Validations
+    storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "POOL_DUPLICATED"));
+    // Close pool creation form
+    cy.byTestID(confirmAction).click();
+  });


Suggested change

it('Should throw an error if duplicate pool is created', () => {

cy.log('Try to creating a new pool with already existing name');

storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);

storagePool.create(poolName, replicaCount);

// Validations

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "POOL_DUPLICATED"));

// Close pool creation form

cy.byTestID(confirmAction).click();

});

it('Should throw an error if duplicate pool is created', () => {

cy.log('Try to creating a new pool with already existing name');

storagePool.prepareStorageClassForm(provisioner);

storagePool.create(poolName, replicaCount);

// Validations

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, "POOL_DUPLICATED"));

// Close pool creation form

cy.byTestID(confirmAction).click();

});

This too should be part of the same it block. As for this to work we need the previous it block to run.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:09:30Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+  getPoolMessage: (poolName: string, status: string) => {
+    return poolMessage.get(status).replace('$PoolName', poolName);
+  },


Suggested change

getPoolMessage: (poolName: string, status: string) => {

return poolMessage.get(status).replace('$PoolName', poolName);

},

getPoolMessage: (poolName: string, status: string) => poolMessage.get(status).replace('$PoolName', poolName);

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:13:48Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+export const createStorageClassButton: string = 'item-create';
+
+// Create storage class from
+export const provisionerDropdown: string = 'storage-class-provisioner-dropdown';
+export const expandPvcCheckbox: string = 'expand-pvc-checkbox';
+export const storagePoolDropdown: string = 'pool-dropdown-toggle';
+export const createNewPoolButton: string = 'create-new-pool-button';
+
+// Create new pool form
+export const titleLabel: string = 'modal-title';
+export const poolNameTextBox: string = 'new-pool-name-textbox';
+export const replicaDropdown: string = 'replica-dropdown';
+export const confirmAction: string = 'confirm-action';
+export const cancelAction: string = 'modal-cancel-action';
+
+// Pool status
+export const emptyStateBody: string = 'empty-state-body';


Constants that are only referenced in one place, don't deserve to be declared as constants. We can directly use them inside the getters. The abstraction provided by storagePool object is good enough. We don't need to reference selectors from here if it's only done once.

Agreed but what if new test cases are written in the future for the same feature. It always better to write a loosely coupled code.

I agree with you, but I am not sure if we will have a use case for pool flows again. If it's required in other tests most of the time we will be creating pools via CLI as it's much easier( and less error-prone). Our constants folder is full of constants that are used in only one place. It'd be better if we refactor it into a constant later when we require it, as the chances of these being used again are quite slim.

removed constants which are all used in one place, please review

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:16:41Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+export const poolMessage: Map<string, string> = new Map([
+  [
+    'PROGRESS',
+    'The creation of an OCS storage cluster is still in progress or have failed please try again after the storage cluster is ready to use.',
+  ],
+  ['POOL_START', 'Pool $PoolName creation in progress'],
+  ['POOL_DUPLICATED', 'Pool "$PoolName" already exists'],
+  ['POOL_CREATED', 'Pool $PoolName was successfully created'],
+]);


I find the usage of Map a bit of an overkill here. We could just use the plain JavaScript object. As I can see the keys are plain strings. I also don't see the need of maintaining insertion order.

bipuladh · 2020-12-22T06:16:58Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  storagePool,
+} from '../views/multiple-pool';
+
+describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {


Suggested change

describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {

describe('Test Ceph pool creation', () => {

GowthamShanmugam · 2020-12-24T12:27:20Z

/retest

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-24T12:28:02Z

@GowthamShanmugam: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

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.

cloudbehl · 2020-12-22T06:23:24Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+
+describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {
+
+  // Ceph status var


Suggested change

// Ceph status var

// Ceph status

cloudbehl · 2020-12-22T06:23:33Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {
+
+  // Ceph status var
+  let cephStatus:any;


Suggested change

let cephStatus:any;

let cephStatus:string;

cloudbehl · 2020-12-22T06:23:54Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+    // Check ceph cluster status
+    cy.exec(`oc get cephCluster -n ${NS} -o json`).then((res) => {
+      const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout.toString());
+      cephStatus = cephValue.items[0];


Suggested change

cephStatus = cephValue.items[0];

cephStatus = cephValue?.items?.[0];

cloudbehl · 2020-12-22T06:24:58Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  // Pool var
+  const poolName: string = 'example.com';
+  const replicaCount: string = '2';
+  const provisioner: string = 'openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com';


Suggested change

const provisioner: string = 'openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com';

const RBDProvisioner: string = 'openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com';

cloudbehl · 2020-12-22T06:27:35Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  let cephStatus:any;
+
+  // Pool var
+  const poolName: string = 'example.com';


Suggested change

const poolName: string = 'example.com';

const poolName: string = 'example-pool';

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:09:56Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  before(() => {
+    cy.login();
+    cy.visit('/');
+    // cy.install();


Suggested change

// cy.install();

cy.install();

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:11:41Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    cy.byTestID(createNewPoolButton).click();
+  },
+  create: (poolName: string, replicaCount: string) => {
+    // Makesure the storage pool creation form is open


Suggested change

// Makesure the storage pool creation form is open

// Make sure the storage pool creation form is open

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:13:19Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    // Select provisioner
+    cy.byTestID(provisionerDropdown)
+      .click()
+      .get(`a[id="${RBDProvisioner}-link"]`)


Suggested change

.get(`a[id="${RBDProvisioner}-link"]`)

.get(`a#${RBDProvisioner}-link`)

You don't really need the a though.

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:13:42Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+    const regex = new RegExp(`${poolDropdownItem.join('|')}`, 'g');
+    storagePool.validate(poolName, regex);
+
+    console.log('Verifying a pool created in backend or not');


Suggested change

console.log('Verifying a pool created in backend or not');

cy.log('Verifying a pool created in backend or not');

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:16:26Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+
+// Pool status
+export const emptyStateBody: string = 'empty-state-body';
+export const poolStatus: string = 'Ready';


The name of the variable doesn't truly reflect what it does. It would be better if it were an enum.

Suggested change

export const poolStatus: string = 'Ready';

export enum PoolStatus {

READY = 'Ready'

}

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:26:03Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+  delete: (poolName: string) => {
+    cy.exec(`oc delete CephBlockPool ${poolName} -n ${NS}`);
+  },


Suggested change

delete: (poolName: string) => {

cy.exec(`oc delete CephBlockPool ${poolName} -n ${NS}`);

},

delete: (poolName: string) => cy.exec(`oc delete CephBlockPool ${poolName} -n ${NS}`);

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:29:36Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    cy.byTestID('create-new-pool-button').click();
+  },
+  create: (poolName: string, replicaCount: string) => {
+    // Makesure the storage pool creation form is open


I think this shows up as a modal. Perhaps you can reuse methods form https://github.com/openshift/console/blob/master/frontend/packages/integration-tests-cypress/views/modal.ts

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:33:34Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+  PROGRESS:
+    'The creation of an OCS storage cluster is still in progress or have failed please try again after the storage cluster is ready to use.',
+  POOL_START: 'Pool $PoolName creation in progress',
+  POOL_DUPLICATED: 'Pool "$PoolName" already exists',
+  POOL_CREATED: 'Pool $PoolName was successfully created',


Suggested change

PROGRESS:

'The creation of an OCS storage cluster is still in progress or have failed please try again after the storage cluster is ready to use.',

POOL_START: 'Pool $PoolName creation in progress',

POOL_DUPLICATED: 'Pool "$PoolName" already exists',

POOL_CREATED: 'Pool $PoolName was successfully created',

PROGRESS: () =>

'The creation of an OCS storage cluster is still in progress or have failed please try again after the storage cluster is ready to use.',

POOL_START: (poolname) => `Pool ${poolName} creation in progress`,

POOL_DUPLICATED: (poolName) => `Pool "${poolName}" already exists',

POOL_CREATED: (poolName) => `Pool ${poolName} was successfully created`,

Doing this should allow us to remove getPoolMessage.

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:36:07Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+  },
+  create: (poolName: string, replicaCount: string) => {
+    // Makesure the storage pool creation form is open
+    cy.byLegacyTestID('modal-title').contains('Create New Storage Pool');


https://github.com/openshift/console/blob/master/frontend/packages/integration-tests-cypress/views/modal.ts#L10

Suggested change

cy.byLegacyTestID('modal-title').contains('Create New Storage Pool');

modalTitleShouldContain('Create New Storage Pool');

bipuladh · 2020-12-28T12:38:31Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+    storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_START'));
+    storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_CREATED'));
+    // Close pool creation form
+    cy.get(`#${confirmAction}`).click();


Suggested change

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_START'));

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_CREATED'));

// Close pool creation form

cy.get(`#${confirmAction}`).click();

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_START'));

storagePool.validate(emptyStateBody, storagePool.getPoolMessage(poolName, 'POOL_CREATED'));

// Close pool creation form

cy.get(`#${confirmAction}`).click();

storagePool.create should have this block as it's part of creating a pool.

GowthamShanmugam · 2020-12-28T16:08:03Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    modal.submitShouldBeEnabled();
+
+    // Create new pool
+    cy.get('#confirm-action').click();


Unable to use the submit method from modals. The storage class creation page and the pool creation model both have submit button.

If two elements are returned we could chain first or last and then get the required element.

GowthamShanmugam · 2021-01-04T18:43:41Z

/retest

openshift-ci-robot · 2021-01-04T18:44:23Z

@GowthamShanmugam: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

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.

GowthamShanmugam · 2021-01-06T08:17:05Z

@cloudbehl @afreen23 @bipuladh all changes are done please review

bipuladh · 2021-01-30T07:24:44Z

/ok-to-test

bipuladh · 2021-01-30T07:31:52Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    cy.byTestID(storagePoolDropdown).click();
+    const poolDropdownItem = [poolName, `Replica ${replicaCount} no compression`];
+    const regex = new RegExp(`${poolDropdownItem.join('|')}`, 'g');
+    storagePool.validate(poolName, regex);


dint know contains supported regex. nice!

bipuladh

Recently introduced change in console.

bipuladh · 2021-02-01T05:00:04Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    cy.visit('/');
+    cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'Storage Classes']);


Suggested change

cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'Storage Classes']);

cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'StorageClasses']);

bipuladh · 2021-02-01T11:31:29Z

Please run prettier on the changed files as well. (frontend test is failing as well)

GowthamShanmugam · 2021-02-01T15:00:02Z

@bipuladh solved frontend test is failiers

bipuladh

/lgtm

bipuladh

/lgtm cancel

bipuladh · 2021-02-02T11:24:19Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+  });
+
+  after(() => {
+    storagePool.delete(poolName);


I think we should make this part of the it block as creation is part of it already.

bipuladh · 2021-02-02T11:28:25Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    // Select provisioner
+    cy.byTestID('storage-class-provisioner-dropdown')
+      .click()
+      .get('#openshift-storage\\.rbd\\.csi\\.ceph\\.com-link')


<a href="#" id="openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com-link" data-test="dropdown-menu-item-link" class="pf-c-dropdown__menu-item">openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com</a>
The element as rendered in the DOM
Perhaps something like
cy.byTestID('dropdown-menu-item-link').contains('openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com')

bipuladh · 2021-02-02T11:29:22Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+    modal.submitShouldBeEnabled();
+
+    // Create new pool
+    cy.get('#confirm-action').click();


If two elements are returned we could chain first or last and then get the required element.

dtaylor113

/lgtm, just some small suggestions

dtaylor113 · 2021-02-04T16:43:48Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/tests/multiple-pool.spec.ts

+    cy.visit('/');
+    cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'StorageClasses']);
+    cy.byTestID('item-create').click();
+  });


Little confused why beforeEach is needed since there is only one test? Suggest moving this to top of single it test.

dtaylor113 · 2021-02-04T16:53:44Z

frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/integration-tests-cypress/views/multiple-pool.ts

+      .type(poolName);
+    cy.byTestID(replicaDropdown)
+      .click()
+      .byLegacyTestID(replicaCount)


Please note that byLegacyTestID and byTestID are Parent Commands and not Child or Dual Commands, as such the chaining here (the cy.get in byLegacyTestID) will start from the root of the DOM, not from replicaDropdown.
So if there was another 'count' link outside of the replicaDropdown which could have, for example < ... data-test-id="3" /> it may be selected.

I've been meaning to convert these to Dual Commands, if your up for it, now would be a good time! :-)

Soigned-off-by: gshanmug <gshanmug@redhat.com>

GowthamShanmugam · 2021-02-05T06:51:54Z

@dtaylor113 Changes done, please review

GowthamShanmugam · 2021-02-05T07:10:42Z

@spadgett Please review

rawagner · 2021-02-05T12:10:39Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2021-02-05T12:10:52Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dtaylor113, GowthamShanmugam, rawagner

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:

~~frontend/OWNERS~~ [rawagner]

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

openshift-ci-robot added the component/ceph Related to ceph-storage-plugin label Dec 21, 2020

openshift-ci-robot requested review from jhadvig and shyRozen December 21, 2020 15:26

openshift-ci-robot added component/core Related to console core functionality needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 21, 2020

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch 2 times, most recently from 86e59ce to b70c2dc Compare December 21, 2020 21:46

bipuladh suggested changes Dec 22, 2020

View reviewed changes

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch 2 times, most recently from f3a79a1 to ee58877 Compare December 22, 2020 20:52

cloudbehl reviewed Dec 24, 2020

View reviewed changes

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch 2 times, most recently from 6862fd2 to 267adbb Compare December 28, 2020 12:21

bipuladh suggested changes Dec 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from 9a5abf1 to 2d05eb2 Compare December 28, 2020 16:04

GowthamShanmugam commented Dec 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from 2d05eb2 to 5b1dfb9 Compare December 28, 2020 16:26

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from 5b1dfb9 to be3df0b Compare January 6, 2021 08:13

openshift-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 30, 2021

bipuladh approved these changes Jan 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

bipuladh suggested changes Feb 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from be3df0b to e474a72 Compare February 1, 2021 14:11

bipuladh approved these changes Feb 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot assigned bipuladh Feb 2, 2021

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 2, 2021

bipuladh suggested changes Feb 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 2, 2021

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from e474a72 to e869e42 Compare February 4, 2021 13:53

dtaylor113 approved these changes Feb 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

Multiple pool cypress testing

bedae20

Soigned-off-by: gshanmug <gshanmug@redhat.com>

GowthamShanmugam force-pushed the multiple_pool_cypress_test branch from e869e42 to bedae20 Compare February 5, 2021 06:50

openshift-ci-robot assigned rawagner Feb 5, 2021

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 5, 2021

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 5, 2021

openshift-merge-robot merged commit c7d2b32 into openshift:master Feb 5, 2021

spadgett added this to the v4.7 milestone Feb 5, 2021

	const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout.toString());
	const cephValue = JSON.parse(res.stdout);

	describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {
	describe('Test Ceph pool creation', () => {


		describe('Test ceph pool creation', () => {

		// Ceph status var

	cephStatus = cephValue.items[0];
	cephStatus = cephValue?.items?.[0];

	const provisioner: string = 'openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com';
	const RBDProvisioner: string = 'openshift-storage.rbd.csi.ceph.com';

	const poolName: string = 'example.com';
	const poolName: string = 'example-pool';

	// Makesure the storage pool creation form is open
	// Make sure the storage pool creation form is open

	.get(`a[id="${RBDProvisioner}-link"]`)
	.get(`a#${RBDProvisioner}-link`)

	console.log('Verifying a pool created in backend or not');
	cy.log('Verifying a pool created in backend or not');

-export const poolStatus: string = 'Ready';
+export enum PoolStatus {
+  READY = 'Ready'
+  }

	cy.byLegacyTestID('modal-title').contains('Create New Storage Pool');
	modalTitleShouldContain('Create New Storage Pool');

	cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'Storage Classes']);
	cy.clickNavLink(['Storage', 'StorageClasses']);

Multiple pool cypress test migration #7616

Multiple pool cypress test migration #7616

Conversation

GowthamShanmugam commented Dec 21, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 21, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

GowthamShanmugam commented Dec 24, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

GowthamShanmugam commented Jan 4, 2021

openshift-ci-robot commented Jan 4, 2021

GowthamShanmugam commented Jan 6, 2021

bipuladh commented Jan 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bipuladh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bipuladh commented Feb 1, 2021

GowthamShanmugam commented Feb 1, 2021

bipuladh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bipuladh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtaylor113 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtaylor113 Feb 4, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtaylor113 Feb 4, 2021 •

edited