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

test(volume): reject strict-local RWX volumes #2239

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

test(volume): reject strict-local RWX volumes #2239

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

COLDTURNIP
Copy link

@COLDTURNIP COLDTURNIP commented Dec 31, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Issue longhorn/longhorn#6736

What this PR does / why we need it:

When a RWX volume is not migratable, the webhook should reject the volume creation if data locality is set to strict-local.

The webhook is implemented in: longhorn/longhorn#6735

Special notes for your reviewer:

Additional documentation or context

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Added a new test case to verify RWX volume compatibility in strict-local mode
    • Expanded test coverage for volume configuration scenarios

@COLDTURNIP
test(volume): reject strict-local RWX volumes
27b976e 
longhorn/longhorn-9781

Signed-off-by: Raphanus Lo <yunchang.lo@suse.com>
@COLDTURNIP COLDTURNIP requested a review from a team as a code owner December 31, 2024 09:11
@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The pull request adds a new test case to the Robot Framework test suite for volume testing. The test case specifically verifies the behavior of RWX volumes in strict-local mode when set to non-migratable. It ensures that volume creation is rejected under these specific conditions, aligning with the test's objective of validating volume management constraints.

Changes

File Change Summary
e2e/tests/regression/test_volume.robot Added new test case Test RWX Volume Without Migratable Should Be Incompatible With Strict-Local

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
[#6736] Reject strict-local + RWX volume creation ✅

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • yangchiu
  • chriscchien

Poem

🐰 In the realm of volumes, strict and tight,
A test springs forth to set things right
RWX meets local, no migration in sight
Robot checks with algorithmic might
Ensuring volumes play by the rule's delight! 🤖

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 969d4a7 and 27b976e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • e2e/tests/regression/test_volume.robot (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
e2e/tests/regression/test_volume.robot (2)

59-65: Well-structured test naming and documentation.

The descriptive test name and reference to the relevant GitHub issue help maintain clarity and traceability for future maintenance. Additionally, the [Tags] usage is consistent with the existing convention in this file and ensures proper categorization in test reports.

66-67: Validate negative scenario coverage.

Creating a volume with migratable=False and dataLocality=strict-local exemplifies a valid negative test, reinforcing that no volume should be created under these conditions. This test effectively guards against potential regressions by verifying that the webhook rejects such invalid configurations. Ensuring the “No volume created” check remains robust provides confidence that undesired volumes are not persisted.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@yangchiu yangchiu self-requested a review January 7, 2025 06:21
@yangchiu yangchiu removed their assignment Jan 7, 2025
yangchiu
yangchiu requested changes Jan 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
e2e/tests/regression/test_volume.robot
...
... Issue: https://github.com/longhorn/longhorn/issues/6735

When Create volume 0 with numberOfReplicas=1 migratable=False accessMode=RWX dataLocality=strict-local
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we add dataEngine=${DATA_ENGINE} to improve v2 test coverage?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@yangchiu yangchiu yangchiu requested changes

@chriscchien chriscchien Awaiting requested review from chriscchien

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@COLDTURNIP @yangchiu