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.

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

Conformance: Add StatefulSet tests. #60336

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2018

Conversation

enisoc
Copy link
Member

@enisoc enisoc commented Feb 24, 2018

Mark StatefulSet tests as Conformance where possible. I've excluded those that depend on a dynamic provisioner and a default storage class (i.e. those that use PVC), because I don't think those things are required for Conformance at this time.

@kow3ns @jagosan Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Part of #54256

StatefulSet in apps/v1 is now included in Conformance Tests.

@enisoc enisoc added sig/apps Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Apps. area/conformance Issues or PRs related to kubernetes conformance tests labels Feb 24, 2018
@enisoc enisoc requested a review from kow3ns February 24, 2018 00:36
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Feb 24, 2018
@@ -901,21 +913,29 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("StatefulSet", func() {
framework.DeleteAllStatefulSets(c, ns)
})

// This can't be Conformance yet because it depends on a default
Copy link
Member

@kow3ns kow3ns Feb 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should never be conformance. We should consider removing it. The same is true for all of the application specific tests that follow it. We haven't removed them because they have been improved to the point that they provide a signal, but we shouldn't require them for API conformance.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it because they are application-specific, or because they rely on dynamic volume provisioning, which is an optional capability?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ken's comment was originally on the ZooKeeper example, and he was referring only to the app-specific tests. I rewrote the comments on those to explain that they are excluded for being app-specific.

After the squash and force push, GitHub has mistakenly placed his comment on a totally different line (that happens to have the same contents as the line he previously commented on).

The "should provide basic identity" test was never in question for being app-specific. It is only excluded because it relies on dynamic provisioning and a default storage class, as indicated in the comment.

Copy link
Member

@kow3ns kow3ns left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally looks good and is the set I would want for conformance except for the exceptions listed below.

@@ -242,7 +248,8 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("StatefulSet", func() {
sst.WaitForRunningAndReady(*ss.Spec.Replicas, ss)
})

It("should perform rolling updates and roll backs of template modifications", func() {
// This is ok for Conformance because it doesn't use any PVCs.
framework.ConformanceIt("should perform rolling updates and roll backs of template modifications", func() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You need to add the appropriate conformance comment. See the README in the conformance dir. The same goes for all selected conformance tests.

@@ -566,7 +574,8 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("StatefulSet", func() {

})

It("should implement legacy replacement when the update strategy is OnDelete", func() {
// This is ok for Conformance because it doesn't use any PVCs.
framework.ConformanceIt("should implement legacy replacement when the update strategy is OnDelete", func() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't make this conformance. It's not clear that OnDelete will continue to be a supported update strategy after extensions/v1beta1 is removed.

@enisoc enisoc force-pushed the statefulset-conformance branch from ca49717 to 9b266e9 Compare February 26, 2018 01:02
@enisoc enisoc force-pushed the statefulset-conformance branch from 9b266e9 to 1e82d13 Compare February 26, 2018 01:05
@enisoc
Copy link
Member Author

enisoc commented Feb 26, 2018

@kow3ns Comments addressed. PTAL.

@kow3ns
Copy link
Member

kow3ns commented Feb 26, 2018

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 26, 2018
@bgrant0607
Copy link
Member

LGTM from a conformance perspective. It looks like the "This can't be Conformance yet because..." comments still need some rewording.

@bgrant0607
Copy link
Member

cc @smarterclayton

@enisoc
Copy link
Member Author

enisoc commented Feb 26, 2018

@bgrant0607 GitHub moved @kow3ns' comment around, which made it look unresolved. In reality, all his comments have been resolved.

@bgrant0607
Copy link
Member

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bgrant0607, enisoc, kow3ns

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

The pull request process is described here

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 26, 2018
@enisoc enisoc added this to the v1.10 milestone Feb 26, 2018
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 59674, 60059, 60220, 58916, 60336). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit b64230b into kubernetes:master Feb 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/conformance Issues or PRs related to kubernetes conformance tests cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/apps Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Apps. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants