Skip to content

Bug 1771809: Add e2e for PodDisruptionBudgetAtLimit alert #316

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
Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits into from
Jan 31, 2020
Merged

Bug 1771809: Add e2e for PodDisruptionBudgetAtLimit alert #316

openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits into from
Jan 31, 2020

Conversation

@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor

@sallyom sallyom commented Nov 20, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Here's an e2e that:

  • creates a pod
  • creates a PodDisruptionBudget of minAvail=1
  • queries prometheus for a pending 'PodDisruptionBudgetAtLimit' alert 'pending' - to wait for 'firing' you'd have to wait 15 min, so pending it is.
  • query uses helper functions from this PR: add helper functions for running prometheus query library-go#602 (fake bump here)

/cc @soltysh @marun

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 20, 2019
@sallyom sallyom force-pushed the pdb-alert-test branch 2 times, most recently from d1a5a81 to d66b663 Compare November 20, 2019 23:53
@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Nov 21, 2019

/test e2e-aws-operator

@sallyom sallyom mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2019
Closed
sanchezl
sanchezl reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/operator_test.go Outdated
})

// test that pdb-atlimit alert exists when there is a pdb at limit
t.Run("PodDisruptionBudgetAtLimit alert", func(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Contributor

@marun marun Nov 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(No action required) Consider using of dashes or underscores in test names instead of spaces to simplify targeting test execution.

marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
marun
marun reviewed Nov 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
@sallyom sallyom force-pushed the pdb-alert-test branch 6 times, most recently from 89cd4aa to bd2beb9 Compare November 23, 2019 20:38
@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Nov 23, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@marun @sanchezl thanks for the review! I've addressed your suggestions, then moved the query functions to library-go openshift/library-go#602 I've placed a fake-bump commit to test the library-go pr.

@sallyom sallyom mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2019
Merged
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 24, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Jan 7, 2020
@sallyom sallyom force-pushed the pdb-alert-test branch 2 times, most recently from bd86675 to 9f908dd Compare January 13, 2020 19:59
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 13, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 13, 2020
@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 14, 2020

/retest

@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 15, 2020

/test e2e-aws

soltysh
soltysh suggested changes Jan 16, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few nits, mostly
/approve

Makefile Outdated
$(call add-bindata,v4.1.0,./bindata/v4.1.0/...,bindata,v411_00_assets,pkg/operator/v411_00_assets/bindata.go)

test-e2e: GO_TEST_PACKAGES :=./test/e2e/...
test-e2e: GO_TEST_FLAGS += -v
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ditto as in the other PR, I don't think we need it here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@sallyom sallyom Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I prefer to see what's going on rather than a hang, but I removed this change : )

test/e2e/operator_test.go Outdated
// Wait for pbd
err = wait.PollImmediate(time.Second*1, testTimeout, func() (bool, error) {
if _, err := policyClient.PodDisruptionBudgets(name).List(metav1.ListOptions{LabelSelector: "app=pbtest"}); err != nil {
return false, fmt.Errorf("Waiting for poddisruptionbudget")
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now with go1.13:

fmt.Errorf("waiting for poddisruptionbudget: %w", err)

test/e2e/operator_test.go
if err != nil {
return false, err
}
if len(pods.Items) > 0 && pods.Items[0].Status.Phase == corev1.PodRunning {
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This still holds.

test/e2e/operator_test.go Outdated
},
}
_, err := client.CoreV1().Pods(name).Create(pod)
if err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just return err

Copy link
Contributor Author

@sallyom sallyom Jan 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@soltysh
Copy link
Contributor

soltysh commented Jan 16, 2020

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. and removed do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Jan 16, 2020
@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 22, 2020

/retest

3 similar comments
@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 24, 2020

/retest

@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 26, 2020

/retest

@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 26, 2020

/retest

@sallyom
Copy link
Contributor Author

sallyom commented Jan 28, 2020

/retest

soltysh
soltysh approved these changes Jan 31, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@soltysh soltysh 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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 31, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Jan 31, 2020

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sallyom, soltysh

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

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@soltysh
Copy link
Contributor

soltysh commented Jan 31, 2020

/retest

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Jan 31, 2020

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Jan 31, 2020

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 45aabef into openshift:master Jan 31, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@sanchezl sanchezl sanchezl left review comments

+3 more reviewers

@marun marun marun requested changes

@sttts sttts sttts left review comments

@soltysh soltysh soltysh approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@soltysh soltysh

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@sallyom @openshift-ci-robot @soltysh @openshift-bot @marun @sttts @sanchezl @openshift-merge-robot