fix: fix dex e2e test failures#1165
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
📝 WalkthroughSummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughThree E2E tests updated: two Dex client-secret tests now fetch a deterministic Dex token Secret and validate its token and expiry fields before comparing to argocd-secret, and the toolchain test updates the expected Redis version from 7.2.11 to 8.2.3. ChangesDex Token Secret Validation Pattern
Toolchain Version Update
🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.go (1)
95-104: ⚡ Quick winSimplify version assignment to eliminate duplication.
Both the
prowand non-prowbranches now setexpected_redisVersionto"8.2.3". Since the values are identical, consider extracting this to a single assignment outside the conditional block to improve maintainability.♻️ Proposed refactor to eliminate duplication
var expected_dexVersion string var expected_redisVersion string + expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" if os.Getenv("CI") == "prow" { // when running against openshift-ci expected_dexVersion = "v2.45.0" - expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" } else { // when running against RC/ released version of gitops expected_dexVersion = "v2.45.0" - expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" }🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.go` around lines 95 - 104, Both branches of the CI check set identical values (expected_dexVersion and expected_redisVersion), so remove duplication by assigning the common value(s) before the conditional; for example, set expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" (and expected_dexVersion = "v2.45.0" if both always match) above the if that checks os.Getenv("CI") == "prow", then only keep branch-specific overrides (if any) inside the if/else so functions/variables named expected_dexVersion and expected_redisVersion are initialized once and the conditional only contains unique logic.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.go`:
- Line 103: The test currently fails to find a Redis pod before running the
version check; update the verification to discover the actual Redis pod using
the same selector/pod-name resolution logic used elsewhere in the test (e.g.,
look for pods with label app.kubernetes.io/name=redis or any pod name containing
"redis" in the openshift-gitops namespace), then exec into that pod and run
`redis-server -v`; parse the output to extract the v=X.Y.Z token and assert it
equals the expected_redisVersion ("8.2.3") and that the full output matches the
expected "Redis server v=X.X.X sha=..." format used by the parsing code around
lines 167-173 so the check reliably targets the real Redis container before
parsing.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.go`:
- Around line 95-104: Both branches of the CI check set identical values
(expected_dexVersion and expected_redisVersion), so remove duplication by
assigning the common value(s) before the conditional; for example, set
expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" (and expected_dexVersion = "v2.45.0" if both
always match) above the if that checks os.Getenv("CI") == "prow", then only keep
branch-specific overrides (if any) inside the if/else so functions/variables
named expected_dexVersion and expected_redisVersion are initialized once and the
conditional only contains unique logic.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: 923832f2-925c-477d-95a5-fa8d4e1a433b
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.gotest/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-095_validate_dex_clientsecret_test.gotest/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-098_validate_dex_clientsecret_deprecated.go
| // when running against RC/ released version of gitops | ||
| expected_dexVersion = "v2.45.0" | ||
| expected_redisVersion = "7.2.11" | ||
| expected_redisVersion = "8.2.3" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify actual Redis version and output format in openshift-gitops namespace
# Wait for Redis pod to be ready
echo "Waiting for Redis pod..."
redis_pod=$(oc get pods -n openshift-gitops -l app.kubernetes.io/name=redis -o jsonpath='{.items[0].metadata.name}' 2>/dev/null)
if [ -z "$redis_pod" ]; then
echo "ERROR: No Redis pod found in openshift-gitops namespace"
exit 1
fi
echo "Found Redis pod: $redis_pod"
# Get Redis version
echo "Extracting Redis version..."
version_output=$(oc exec -n openshift-gitops "$redis_pod" -- redis-server -v 2>/dev/null)
echo "Raw output: $version_output"
# Check if output matches expected format
if echo "$version_output" | grep -q "v="; then
version=$(echo "$version_output" | sed 's/.*v=\([^ ]*\).*/\1/')
echo "Parsed version: $version"
echo "Expected version: 8.2.3"
if [ "$version" = "8.2.3" ]; then
echo "✓ Version matches expectation"
else
echo "✗ Version mismatch: got $version, expected 8.2.3"
fi
else
echo "✗ Output format does not contain 'v=' pattern"
echo "This may break the version parsing logic"
fiRepository: redhat-developer/gitops-operator
Length of output: 157
Fix Redis-version verification to locate the actual Redis pod before checking output format.
The suggested verification script doesn’t find any Redis pod in the openshift-gitops namespace with -l app.kubernetes.io/name=redis (“No Redis pod found…”). Update the script to discover the Redis pod using the same selector/pod name logic the test uses (or dynamically search pod names for “redis” in the relevant namespace(s)), then run redis-server -v and ensure the parsed v=X.Y.Z matches 8.2.3 and conforms to the expected Redis server v=X.X.X sha=... format used by the parsing logic (around lines 167-173).
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@test/openshift/e2e/ginkgo/parallel/1-031_validate_toolchain_test.go` at line
103, The test currently fails to find a Redis pod before running the version
check; update the verification to discover the actual Redis pod using the same
selector/pod-name resolution logic used elsewhere in the test (e.g., look for
pods with label app.kubernetes.io/name=redis or any pod name containing "redis"
in the openshift-gitops namespace), then exec into that pod and run
`redis-server -v`; parse the output to extract the v=X.Y.Z token and assert it
equals the expected_redisVersion ("8.2.3") and that the full output matches the
expected "Redis server v=X.X.X sha=..." format used by the parsing code around
lines 167-173 so the check reliably targets the real Redis container before
parsing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might not require this change. Please revert if the tests fail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@svghadi, understood. The change aligns both the prow and non-prow paths to 8.2.3, so monitoring the test results will be the clearest signal. If the deployed Redis image reports a different version string, reverting this line should be straightforward. Feel free to ping me if you'd like help investigating a failure.
Signed-off-by: Rizwana777 <rizwananaaz177@gmail.com>
Rizwana777
force-pushed
the
fix-dex-e2e-failures
branch
from
9649256 to
64672ad
Compare
|
/retest |
|
/test v4.19-kuttl-sequential |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: svghadi The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/cherry-pick v1.20 |
|
@svghadi: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/cherry-pick v1.21 |
|
@svghadi: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
openshift-merge-bot
Bot
merged commit ffc55c6
into
redhat-developer:master
|
@svghadi: #1165 failed to apply on top of branch "v1.20": DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@svghadi: new pull request created: #1166 DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
3 participants
What type of PR is this?
What does this PR do / why we need it:
Have you updated the necessary documentation?
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #?
Test acceptance criteria:
How to test changes / Special notes to the reviewer: