-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 431
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
Add end to end tests to apiserver #1460
Conversation
873b2a7
to
5b22dc3
Compare
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ jobs: | |||
working-directory: ${{env.working-directory}} | |||
|
|||
- name: Test | |||
run: go test ./... | |||
run: go test ./pkg/... ./cmd/... -race -parallel 4 |
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.
@kevin85421 let me know if this change is acceptable. If not made the e2e test would execute, and fail as there's no kind cluster setup at this point of the pipeline.
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 we use make test
instead?
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.
Technically, I don't see a reason why make test cannot be here. I did not add it as it would have been different than what is happening for the other steps in the CI pipeline and I did not seem to be a changed related to the main scope of the PR.
I would prefer that we change the CI (Git hub actions) for the API Server in separate PR and perhaps integrate the execution of the e2e tests with build kite.
I would not change more in the GH action than I have already done.
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.
Sounds good
I still need to a a few more test cases and fixes, but I would like to get some feedback on what I have so far. @tedhtchang, @blublinsky and @anishasthana can provide feedback ? |
This looks great. Makes things so much simpler |
68ec386
to
1de910a
Compare
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.
I had some small issues(see comment). Otherwise, this looks good. I was able to run make operator-image local-e2e-test -e OPERATOR_IMAGE_TAG=latest -e GO_TEST_FLAGS="-v"
successfully.
a4e36c6
to
89193e5
Compare
@astefanutti can you take a look ? |
89193e5
to
b3c7848
Compare
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.
Looks great. Could a GH Actions workflow be created so it runs in CI?
1be8fd7
to
a95cb9c
Compare
2336828
to
903f28b
Compare
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.
Two suggestions, but overall looks good
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.
LGTM
I kept failing the same test for some reason:
|
66ae42c
to
6c8cc28
Compare
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.
/LGTM
@kevin85421, let me know if you have any concerns with this PR, if not can you please merge it ? |
045c364
to
41934c0
Compare
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.
Thank you for the contribution! Testing is always the most important part of the KubeRay community.
Rerun the CI. There seem to be some changes in the Ray nightly build causing flakiness. |
Why are these changes needed?
The kuberay api server does not have an easy to execute set of test cases that would allow for the validation of the integration between it and the kuberay operator. This PR provides a basic set of such integration test cases.
This PR:
Related issue number
Closes #1388
Checks