-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 807
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.
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
[Hold] Add format option e2e tests #1763
[Hold] Add format option e2e tests #1763
Conversation
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Context(fmt.Sprintf("with an %s filesystem", fsType), func() { | ||
// TODO: is t clear? Or should it be 'formatOptionTestCaseValues' | ||
for _, t := range formatOptionTests { | ||
if fsTypeDoesNotSupportFormatOptionParameter(fsType, t.createVolumeParameterKey) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can move to inside spec itself with ginkgo.Skip() to be slightly cleaner!
Is this a bug fix or adding new feature?
Feature
What is this PR about? / Why do we need it?
Incomplete PR for adding format option e2e tests. They test that a volume created with a supported custom format option successfully mount and are later resizable.
Considering refactoring part of format_options.go into a tester file like other e2e tests.
See individual commits for conceptual breakdown.
For this PR I'm looking for feedback on:
What testing is done?
ginkgo run -v --focus='[format-options'