migrate some e2e testcases #1500

fanhaouu · 2024-08-18T19:29:03Z

migrate e2e_duplicatepods e2e_failedpods e2e_topologyspreadconstraint e2e_leaderelection e2e_clientconnection

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-08-18T19:29:13Z

Hi @fanhaouu. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-08-18T19:29:30Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign a7i for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

fanhaouu · 2024-08-18T19:33:45Z

The current method of using IMAGE_TAG as VERSION in run-e2e-tests.sh to make the image has issues, which results in the failure to obtain the minor version during the image build. Additionally, should we also synchronize and push the image after making it? @ingvagabund

ingvagabund · 2024-08-19T06:50:26Z

@fanhaouu can you split the PR into multiple commits? Each commit with a reasonable change. E.g. one commit per a test change. Also, @hsunwenfang has already started migration of TestLeaderElection in #1497.

ingvagabund · 2024-08-19T06:54:51Z

The current method of using IMAGE_TAG as VERSION in run-e2e-tests.sh to make the image has issues, which results in the failure to obtain the minor version during the image build.

During the image build? Can you share the failure? I am aware of a parsing error when running descheduler. Is this a new failure?

Additionally, should we also synchronize and push the image after making it?

The image is built only for testing purposes. There's a different mechanism configured for building new image after each PR merges.

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T07:07:02Z

@fanhaouu can you split the PR into multiple commits? Each commit with a reasonable change. E.g. one commit per a test change. Also, @hsunwenfang has already started migration of TestLeaderElection in #1497.

sorryt, I can't split the PR into multiple commits; many of the changes were made together.

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T07:09:34Z

The current method of using IMAGE_TAG as VERSION in run-e2e-tests.sh to make the image has issues, which results in the failure to obtain the minor version during the image build.

During the image build? Can you share the failure? I am aware of a parsing error when running descheduler. Is this a new failure?

Additionally, should we also synchronize and push the image after making it?

The image is built only for testing purposes. There's a different mechanism configured for building new image after each PR merges.
A parsing error when running descheduler. Since we were passing the version as a specific tag, I have now changed it to IMAGE_TAG=v$(shell date +%Y%m%d)-$(shell git describe --tags)."

ingvagabund · 2024-08-19T07:10:31Z

sorryt, I can't split the PR into multiple commits; many of the changes were made together.

It's a good exercise to find a way how to split the PR into smaller changes. Please keep in mind we need to help each other when reviewing any PR. The smaller the changes the easier it is to review it. Even if it means to refactor the code in a different PR before you can make a PR that performs the actual migration.

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T07:22:08Z

sorryt, I can't split the PR into multiple commits; many of the changes were made together.

It's a good exercise to find a way how to split the PR into smaller changes. Please keep in mind we need to help each other when reviewing any PR. The smaller the changes the easier it is to review it. Even if it means to refactor the code in a different PR before you can make a PR that performs the actual migration.

Got it, I understand. I'll pay attention to it next time, but if I have to split this into many PRs, it will consume a lot of my effort and time. The PR #1497 is not finished yet, and there are many issues. It seems like he didn't fully understand how to perform the migration.

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T07:24:52Z

@ingvagabund There are still some other strategies in the e2e_test.go file. Should those also be migrated?

hsunwenfang · 2024-08-19T07:28:38Z

sorryt, I can't split the PR into multiple commits; many of the changes were made together.

It's a good exercise to find a way how to split the PR into smaller changes. Please keep in mind we need to help each other when reviewing any PR. The smaller the changes the easier it is to review it. Even if it means to refactor the code in a different PR before you can make a PR that performs the actual migration.

Got it, I understand. I'll pay attention to it next time, but if I have to split this into many PRs, it will consume a lot of my effort and time. The PR #1497 is not finished yet, and there are many issues. It seems like he didn't fully understand how to perform the migration.

Hi @fanhaouu
I just committed earlier and encounter some problem during the testing
Can you instruct me on the remaining issues?
thx!

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T07:36:03Z

sorryt, I can't split the PR into multiple commits; many of the changes were made together.

It's a good exercise to find a way how to split the PR into smaller changes. Please keep in mind we need to help each other when reviewing any PR. The smaller the changes the easier it is to review it. Even if it means to refactor the code in a different PR before you can make a PR that performs the actual migration.

Got it, I understand. I'll pay attention to it next time, but if I have to split this into many PRs, it will consume a lot of my effort and time. The PR #1497 is not finished yet, and there are many issues. It seems like he didn't fully understand how to perform the migration.

Hi @fanhaouu I just committed earlier and encounter some problem during the testing Can you instruct me on the remaining issues? thx!

Your submission doesn't seem to have been executed in a k8s cluster with make test-e2e. Otherwise, you would have encountered many issues. Your test case might not even run.If possible, could you review my submission regarding the test for leader election?

ingvagabund · 2024-08-19T10:41:25Z

/ok-to-test

ingvagabund · 2024-08-19T10:49:33Z

Got it, I understand. I'll pay attention to it next time, but if I have to split this into many PRs, it will consume a lot of my effort and time.

I see a lot of good improvements in the code. Thank you that. My initial review notes:

Can you unrename test/e2e/test_clientconnection_test.go? It's easier to review code changes rather than file renames
I see you are removing createDeployment and other like duplicates. This deserves its own commit/PR.
The same holds for removal of waitForDeschedulerPodRunning/waitForDeschedulerPodAbsent and generalizing the methods. This deserves its own commit/PR.

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T16:20:03Z

I see you are removing createDeployment and other like duplicates. This deserves its own commit/PR.

The same holds for removal of waitForDeschedulerPodRunning/waitForDeschedulerPodAbsent and generalizing the methods. This deserves its own commit/PR.

Ok, no problem. I will make some improvements.

… method to remove duplicated method

fanhaouu · 2024-08-19T18:24:19Z

/retest

test/run-e2e-tests.sh

ingvagabund · 2024-08-20T08:47:42Z

test/e2e/e2e_toomanyrestarts_test.go

@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ func TestTooManyRestarts(t *testing.T) {
 if _, err := clientSet.CoreV1().Namespaces().Create(ctx, testNamespace, metav1.CreateOptions{}); err != nil {
 t.Fatalf("Unable to create ns %v", testNamespace.Name)
 }
- defer clientSet.CoreV1().Namespaces().Delete(ctx, testNamespace.Name, metav1.DeleteOptions{})


This needs to stay here in case creating a deployment errors and t.Fatalf is invoked.

I didn't remove this logic. I move it to

descheduler/test/e2e/e2e_toomanyrestarts_test.go

Line 124 in 1e23dbc

clientSet.CoreV1().Namespaces().Delete(ctx, testNamespace.Name, metav1.DeleteOptions{})

ingvagabund · 2024-08-20T08:53:05Z

test/e2e/e2e_topologyspreadconstraint_test.go

@@ -194,9 +196,6 @@ func TestTopologySpreadConstraint(t *testing.T) {
 return
 }

- // Ensure recently evicted Pod are rescheduled and running before asserting for a balanced topology spread
- test.WaitForDeploymentPodsRunning(ctx, t, clientSet, deployment)


This is needed for synchronization as the comment describes.

We are currently running the descheduler inside a container, so we just need to continuously wait for the results using wait.PollUntilContextTimeout. We don’t actually know when the descheduler evicts the pods.

descheduler/test/e2e/e2e_topologyspreadconstraint_test.go

Line 258 in 5464f37

if err := wait.PollUntilContextTimeout(ctx, 5*time.Second, 60*time.Second, true, func(ctx context.Context) (bool, error) {

ingvagabund · 2024-08-20T08:54:48Z

test/e2e/e2e_topologyspreadconstraint_test.go

@@ -181,9 +186,6 @@ func TestTopologySpreadConstraint(t *testing.T) {
 plugin.(frameworktypes.BalancePlugin).Balance(ctx, workerNodes)
 t.Logf("Finished RemovePodsViolatingTopologySpreadConstraint strategy for %s", name)

- t.Logf("Wait for terminating pods of %s to disappear", name)
- waitForTerminatingPodsToDisappear(ctx, t, clientSet, deployment.Namespace)


This is needed for synchronization so new pods get a chance to be started

We are currently running the descheduler inside a container, so we just need to continuously wait for the results using wait.PollUntilContextTimeout. We don’t actually know when the descheduler evicts the pods.

descheduler/test/e2e/e2e_topologyspreadconstraint_test.go

Line 258 in 5464f37

if err := wait.PollUntilContextTimeout(ctx, 5*time.Second, 60*time.Second, true, func(ctx context.Context) (bool, error) {

We don’t actually know when the descheduler evicts the pods

We do as we expect the descheduler to evict certain pods in a certain time based on the configuration the test sets.

ingvagabund · 2024-08-20T08:57:01Z

@fanhaouu just a quick review. Lemme know once the PR is ready for review and all the tests are going green. Thank you.

…hen the descheduler running

fanhaouu · 2024-08-22T11:04:51Z

@fanhaouu just a quick review. Lemme know once the PR is ready for review and all the tests are going green. Thank you.

That's ok. I think you can start to review. It's really frustrating. I've been making adjustments for a long time.

ingvagabund · 2024-08-29T10:31:42Z

test/e2e/e2e_leaderelection_test.go

 }
- deschedulerPolicyConfigMapObj, err := deschedulerPolicyConfigMap(podlifetimePolicy(podLifeTimeArgs, evictorArgs))
- deschedulerPolicyConfigMapObj.Name = fmt.Sprintf("%s-%s", deschedulerPolicyConfigMapObj.Name, testName)
+ deschedulerPolicyConfigMapObj, err := deschedulerPolicyConfigMap(podlifetimePolicy(podLifeTimeArgs, evictorArgs), func(cm *v1.ConfigMap) {


What's the benefit of abstracting deschedulerPolicyConfigMap and deschedulerDeployment methods if the apply part is used only once?

ingvagabund · 2024-08-29T10:37:12Z

test/e2e/e2e_test.go

@@ -1392,6 +1392,24 @@ func waitForRCPodsRunning(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, clientSet clientset
 }
 }

+func waitForTerminatingPodsToDisappear(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, clientSet clientset.Interface, namespace string) {


Here you are putting back waitForTerminatingPodsToDisappear which was removed in 1e23dbc. Can you consolidate the changes into a single commit?

ingvagabund · 2024-08-29T10:38:21Z

kubernetes/base/rbac.yaml

 - apiGroups: ["coordination.k8s.io"]
 resources: ["leases"]
 resourceNames: ["descheduler"]
- verbs: ["get", "patch", "delete"]
+ verbs: ["get", "patch", "delete","create", "update"]


Is there a particular change/commit that resulting in need to add the verbs here? If so, it needs to be part of the same commit/PR.

ingvagabund · 2024-08-29T10:40:19Z

test/e2e/e2e_topologyspreadconstraint_test.go

- var meetsExpectations bool
+ var meetsEvictedExpectations bool
+ var actualEvictedPodCount int
+ t.Logf("Check whether the number of evicted pods meets the expectation")


The commit message resolve the issue causing the e2e test failures does not describe which issue and what e2e test failure was resolved. Also, this commit changes two e2es. Is the change in TestTopologySpreadConstraint related to the issue/e2e test failure? If not, can you move this change into migrate e2e_topologyspreadconstraint commit?

ingvagabund · 2024-08-29T10:41:29Z

@fanhaouu if you separate generic changes from this PR into separate PRs it will be easier and faster to review the migration. There's still changes in this PR that are changing changes in previous commits of this PR.

fanhaouu · 2024-09-03T17:30:18Z

@fanhaouu if you separate generic changes from this PR into separate PRs it will be easier and faster to review the migration. There's still changes in this PR that are changing changes in previous commits of this PR.

I think submitting too many changes at once is too cumbersome and makes reviewing difficult. Therefore, I’ve decided to split this PR into smaller, individual PRs.

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:32:29Z

PR needs rebase.

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.

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from ingvagabund and JaneLiuL August 18, 2024 19:29

fanhaouu mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2024

Migrate all e2es to run descheduler as an image #1478

Open

5 tasks

fanhaouu force-pushed the feat-migrate-e2e-tests branch from 6194ad2 to 16e4377 Compare August 18, 2024 19:39

k8s-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 Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu added 6 commits August 20, 2024 01:26

refactor BuildTestDeployment method

ad657c3

refactor waitForPodsRunning method and add new waitForPodsToDisappear…

1e23dbc

… method to remove duplicated method

migrate e2e_duplicatepods

a3941a6

migrate e2e_failedpods

8b76062

refactor e2e_toomanyrestarts

dbf4d37

migrate e2e_topologyspreadconstraint

5464f37

fanhaouu added 2 commits August 20, 2024 02:21

migrate e2e_leaderelection

59b0203

migrate e2e_clientconnection

a4b52b8

fanhaouu force-pushed the feat-migrate-e2e-tests branch from 16e4377 to a4b52b8 Compare August 19, 2024 18:23

ingvagabund reviewed Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

fanhaouu added 2 commits August 21, 2024 17:40

gofumpt e2e_tests code

71dd70d

modify the IMAGE_TAG to ensure that the version is correctly parsed w…

9befb6e

…hen the descheduler running

fanhaouu force-pushed the feat-migrate-e2e-tests branch 7 times, most recently from cd7b9ce to 115f816 Compare August 22, 2024 08:01

fanhaouu added 3 commits August 22, 2024 18:20

resolve the issue causing the e2e test failures

9f7d8ad

abstract deschedulerPolicyConfigMap and deschedulerDeployment methods

20fcb33

resolve the issue with lease operations in e2e_leaderelection_test

9ba1c55

fanhaouu force-pushed the feat-migrate-e2e-tests branch from 115f816 to 9ba1c55 Compare August 22, 2024 10:25

add leases update permission

196ac65

ingvagabund requested changes Aug 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 20, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

migrate some e2e testcases #1500

migrate some e2e testcases #1500

fanhaouu commented Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 18, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 18, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

hsunwenfang commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 20, 2024

fanhaouu Aug 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ingvagabund Aug 20, 2024

fanhaouu Aug 21, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 20, 2024

fanhaouu Aug 21, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 29, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 20, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ingvagabund Aug 29, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 29, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 29, 2024

ingvagabund Aug 29, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fanhaouu commented Sep 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024

migrate some e2e testcases #1500

Are you sure you want to change the base?

migrate some e2e testcases #1500

Conversation

fanhaouu commented Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 18, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 18, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 18, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024 • edited Loading

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

hsunwenfang commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

ingvagabund commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fanhaouu Aug 21, 2024 • edited Loading

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

ingvagabund commented Aug 20, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 22, 2024 • edited Loading

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

ingvagabund commented Aug 29, 2024 • edited Loading

fanhaouu commented Sep 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024

fanhaouu commented Aug 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fanhaouu Aug 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fanhaouu commented Aug 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ingvagabund commented Aug 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading