etcdctl: fix json output

[kstrifonoff]

Fix #19262

Example output of etcdctl member add test-node --learner=true --peer-urls=http://127.0.0.1:22380 --write-out json --hex command:

Before:

{
  "header": {
    "cluster_id": 14841639068965178418,
    "member_id": 10276657743932975437,
    "raft_term": 2
  },
  "member": {
    "ID": 17436648322565278587,
    "peerURLs": ["http://127.0.0.1:22380"],
    "isLearner": true
  },
  "members": [
    {
      "ID": 10276657743932975437,
      "name": "default",
      "peerURLs": ["http://localhost:2380"],
      "clientURLs": ["http://localhost:2379"]
    },
    {
      "ID": 17436648322565278587,
      "peerURLs": ["http://127.0.0.1:22380"],
      "isLearner": true
    }
  ]
}

After

{
  "header": {
    "cluster_id": "cdf818194e3a8c32",
    "member_id": "8e9e05c52164694d",
    "raft_term": 2
  },
  "member": {
    "ID": "5bdeb7bdb679126b",
    "peerURLs": ["http://127.0.0.1:22380"],
    "isLearner": true
  },
  "members": [
    {
      "ID": "5bdeb7bdb679126b",
      "peerURLs": ["http://127.0.0.1:22380"],
      "isLearner": true
    },
    {
      "ID": "8e9e05c52164694d",
      "name": "default",
      "peerURLs": ["http://localhost:2380"],
      "clientURLs": ["http://localhost:2379"]
    }
  ]
}

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @kstrifonoff. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io 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-sigs/prow repository.

[kstrifonoff]

/cc @ivanvc

[ivanvc]

Hi @kstrifonoff, thanks for the pull request. I'm respectful to the original contributor who asked to work on this. Our guideline is to re-assign after a week of no answer when asking a contributor for updates.

A couple of suggestions by quickly looking at the code.

1. The imports contain a lint error. Running make verify-lint locally will show you the error.
2. The code doesn't have unit tests for this, but there's an e2e test, TestCtlV3MemberListWithHex. I think the test should pass, but adding your new cases would be good.
3. I suggest reviewing the code from printKV. I think it would be better to follow that implementation approach, i.e., there would be less repetition with the if conditions.

Thanks again for your pull request :)

[kstrifonoff]

Hi @ivanvc ,

I’ve made some changes to my initial suggestions based on your feedback.

Now, the “JSON with Hex” implementation is just a slight extension of the default “printJSON” implementation. I think it should probably be moved into the “utils” package.

Here are a few things I noticed:

1. The implementation assumes marshalling back and forth the default JSON string, which can be inefficient, but I assume it’s still okay for the CLI.
2. Also, the current approach makes it easy to add “json with hex” output for all the rest of commands that support JSON output.
3. I’m not sure what kind of end-to-end test should be done here. What should it cover? It’s also not clear to me what the current end-to-end test actually checks.

[ivanvc]

/ok-to-test

[ivanvc]

I’m not sure what kind of end-to-end test should be done here. What should it cover? It’s also not clear to me what the current end-to-end test actually checks.

The e2e tests already exist, my suggestion is to expand them to cover the new cases you added:

etcd/tests/e2e/ctl_v3_member_test.go

Lines 206 to 255 in 9f1709e

	func memberListWithHexTest(cx ctlCtx) {
	resp, err := getMemberList(cx, false)
	if err != nil {
	cx.t.Fatalf("getMemberList error (%v)", err)
	}
	cmdArgs := append(cx.PrefixArgs(), "--write-out", "json", "--hex", "member", "list")
	proc, err := e2e.SpawnCmd(cmdArgs, cx.envMap)
	if err != nil {
	cx.t.Fatalf("memberListWithHexTest error (%v)", err)
	}
	var txt string
	txt, err = proc.Expect("members")
	if err != nil {
	cx.t.Fatalf("memberListWithHexTest error (%v)", err)
	}
	if err = proc.Close(); err != nil {
	cx.t.Fatalf("memberListWithHexTest error (%v)", err)
	}
	hexResp := etcdserverpb.MemberListResponse{}
	dec := json.NewDecoder(strings.NewReader(txt))
	if err := dec.Decode(&hexResp); errors.Is(err, io.EOF) {
	cx.t.Fatalf("memberListWithHexTest error (%v)", err)
	}
	num := len(resp.Members)
	hexNum := len(hexResp.Members)
	if num != hexNum {
	cx.t.Fatalf("member number,expected %d,got %d", num, hexNum)
	}
	if num == 0 {
	cx.t.Fatal("member number is 0")
	}
	if resp.Header.RaftTerm != hexResp.Header.RaftTerm {
	cx.t.Fatalf("Unexpected raft_term, expected %d, got %d", resp.Header.RaftTerm, hexResp.Header.RaftTerm)
	}
	for i := 0; i < num; i++ {
	if resp.Members[i].Name != hexResp.Members[i].Name {
	cx.t.Fatalf("Unexpected member name,expected %v, got %v", resp.Members[i].Name, hexResp.Members[i].Name)
	}
	if !reflect.DeepEqual(resp.Members[i].PeerURLs, hexResp.Members[i].PeerURLs) {
	cx.t.Fatalf("Unexpected member peerURLs, expected %v, got %v", resp.Members[i].PeerURLs, hexResp.Members[i].PeerURLs)
	}
	if !reflect.DeepEqual(resp.Members[i].ClientURLs, hexResp.Members[i].ClientURLs) {
	cx.t.Fatalf("Unexpected member clientURLs, expected %v, got %v", resp.Members[i].ClientURLs, hexResp.Members[i].ClientURLs)
	}
	}
	}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.74468% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.22%. Comparing base (d744c19) to head (b42b5f9).
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/printer_json.go	95.74%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
etcdctl/ctlv3/command/printer_json.go	46.60% <95.74%> (+46.60%)	⬆️

... and 20 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #19469      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.28%   69.22%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         414      414              
  Lines       34408    34455      +47     
==========================================
+ Hits        23840    23853      +13     
- Misses       9180     9203      +23     
- Partials     1388     1399      +11     

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d744c19...b42b5f9. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[kstrifonoff]

/retest

[kstrifonoff]

/retest

[k8s-ci-robot]

@kstrifonoff: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci-etcd-robustness-release36-amd64	311626f	link	true	/test ci-etcd-robustness-release36-amd64

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[kstrifonoff]

/retest

[ahrtr]

LGTM & thx

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, fuweid, kstrifonoff

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 [ahrtr,fuweid]

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

[Elbehery]

@ivanvc did @kstrifonoff address your review ?