Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

e2e: ExitCleanly(): a few more #20089

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 25, 2023
Merged

e2e: ExitCleanly(): a few more #20089

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 25, 2023

Conversation

edsantiago
Copy link
Member

A few more files. Changes in Commit Two are a bit heavier than usual.

None

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added release-note-none approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Sep 21, 2023
edsantiago
edsantiago commented Sep 21, 2023
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/pull_test.go
Comment on lines +132 to +133
Expect(session.ErrorToString()).To(ContainSubstring("The storage 'driver' option should be set in "))
Expect(session.ErrorToString()).To(ContainSubstring("A driver was picked automatically."))
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want to keep this check, or would it make sense to write a driver into that storage.conf file?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd keep for the sake of this PR, but if it should move, adding an issue to GitHub would make sense to me.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd also keep it for now.

@edsantiago edsantiago force-pushed the e2e_check_stderr__more branch from 92a676b to 30174d4 Compare September 21, 2023 17:06
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

The changes LGTM in general. I'm just slightly concerned that this over-quiets things. It would be good, I think, to keep some percentage as non-quiet to make sure we're exercising that code path at least. However, I'm fine not changing this PR for this, and if needed, doing in a follow-up.

vrothberg
vrothberg approved these changes Sep 22, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Luap99
Luap99 reviewed Sep 22, 2023
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/push_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@edsantiago
e2e: ExitCleanly(): a few more
8e743fa 
Commit 1 of 2: automated string replace Exit(0) -> ExitCleanly()

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
@edsantiago
e2e: ExitCleanly(): manual fixes to get tests passing
4916f7d 
Commit 2 of 2: steps to make tests work under ExitCleanly()

Mostly adding "-q" to push/pull, but also:

 - revert ExitCleanly(), and add error-message checks
   if absent;

 - fix a test that was completely nonfunctional from
   Day One: test was getting skipped because registry
   couldn't start, because of missing ":z"s in mount option.
   Fixed, and removed the bypass;

 - use built-in skopeo, not pulled-container skopeo. Skopeo
   is already a requirement for system tests.

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
@edsantiago edsantiago force-pushed the e2e_check_stderr__more branch from 30174d4 to 4916f7d Compare September 22, 2023 12:12
Luap99
Luap99 approved these changes Sep 22, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 22, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 22, 2023
@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

The changes LGTM in general. I'm just slightly concerned that this over-quiets things. It would be good, I think, to keep some percentage as non-quiet to make sure we're exercising that code path at least. However, I'm fine not changing this PR for this, and if needed, doing in a follow-up.

@TomSweeneyRedHat can you suggest a better approach? To my mind this PR adds testing for progress messages in podman pull and podman run. Before adding "-q" where I did, I skimmed my test logs, and each log looked pretty much the same as the other: Getting ... Copying blob ... Writing ... I could add a few more tests for those, but I'm not sure how much value that would add?

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

@edsantiago I, too, like the approach. My concern was that all of the -q flags were removed. I think having a few (1 or 2) remain for each command that uses that option would be good. I don't have particular instances where the -q should be added if it is indeed completely missing, just a general thought. Does that help?

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

My concern was that all of the -q flags were removed

Added, right? I've made sure that podman pull, push, run, load, manifest push, all include stderr checks for "Copying blob" (etc) progress messages; in some cases this is more than we had before. What this PR does is add (not remove) -q to most such commands, making it possible to test for unexpected/unwanted stderr while also testing the usual case, without -q, to make sure that user-desired progress messages are displayed.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

@edsantiago badly worded, trying to do too many things at once.

I'm fine with the -q being added. I would like to leave at least a few commands of each type that have the -q option, not use it in the tests so that we get code coverage for both the -q and no -q paths.

vrothberg
vrothberg approved these changes Sep 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 25, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, Luap99, vrothberg

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 [Luap99,edsantiago,vrothberg]

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

@vrothberg
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 25, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit f41d536 into containers:main Sep 25, 2023
97 checks passed
@edsantiago edsantiago deleted the e2e_check_stderr__more branch September 25, 2023 11:27
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Dec 25, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 25, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left review comments

@Luap99 Luap99 Luap99 approved these changes

@vrothberg vrothberg vrothberg approved these changes

Assignees

@vrothberg vrothberg

@Luap99 Luap99

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@edsantiago @TomSweeneyRedHat @vrothberg @Luap99 @openshift-merge-robot