Skip to content

Conversation

tmshort
Copy link
Contributor

@tmshort tmshort commented Sep 5, 2024

Fixes: #1115

Description

Reviewer Checklist

  • API Go Documentation
  • Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
  • Comprehensive Commit Messages
  • Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

@tmshort tmshort requested a review from a team as a code owner September 5, 2024 19:08
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 5, 2024

Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit b17f1c1
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/66df38c30c432600088c897f
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1222--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@tmshort
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmshort commented Sep 5, 2024

The upgrade-e2e failure is likely, due to the addition of a webhook

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 5, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.53%. Comparing base (f8c9077) to head (b17f1c1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1222   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.53%   76.53%           
=======================================
  Files          40       40           
  Lines        2340     2340           
=======================================
  Hits         1791     1791           
  Misses        392      392           
  Partials      157      157           
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 57.64% <ø> (ø)
unit 52.47% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

}
}

func TestClusterCatalogLabels(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need this separate test in operator-controller? It seems like

  1. it is functionality that is fully encompassed (and now tested) in catalogd.
  2. we are already testing this indirectly via operator-controller's support of catalog selectors in its ClusterExtension API.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If catalogd's behavior changes, then this would detect it, but so would other tests. I can live without it

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

but so would other tests

Right, our other tests depend on that functionality working now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 on not testing catalogd's behavior explicitly in operator-controller

@tmshort
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmshort commented Sep 6, 2024

It would seem that using GenerateName, as used here:

won't work with ClusterCatalogs...

@perdasilva
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 6, 2024
perdasilva
perdasilva previously approved these changes Sep 6, 2024
@everettraven
Copy link
Contributor

It would seem that using GenerateName, as used here:

won't work with ClusterCatalogs...

Why is that?

@tmshort
Copy link
Contributor Author

tmshort commented Sep 9, 2024

Why is that?

Because the name field doesn't exist, the webhook matchConditions errors out. This has been fixed in my latest merged PR to catalogd: operator-framework/catalogd#382

* Use proper labels from catalogd
* Add better deployment checking
* Fix broken test

This test seems broken, it's supposed to resolve again, and the
test implies that this should be the 2.0.0 version, but it's
checking against 1.2.0 (which was the original version installed)

Signed-off-by: Todd Short <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 9, 2024
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 9, 2024

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

E2E tests for labeling webhooks and selector

4 participants