-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
🌱 Update catalogd e2e and update e2e #1222
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
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
The upgrade-e2e failure is likely, due to the addition of a webhook |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
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
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
func TestClusterCatalogLabels(t *testing.T) { |
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.
Do we need this separate test in operator-controller
? It seems like
- it is functionality that is fully encompassed (and now tested) in catalogd.
- we are already testing this indirectly via operator-controller's support of catalog selectors in its ClusterExtension API.
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.
If catalogd's behavior changes, then this would detect it, but so would other tests. I can live without it
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.
but so would other tests
Right, our other tests depend on that functionality working now.
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.
+1 on not testing catalogd's behavior explicitly in operator-controller
baec0ed
to
2e1c781
Compare
It would seem that using
|
/lgtm |
Why is that? |
Because the |
* 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]>
e5a0563
to
b17f1c1
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
Fixes: #1115
Description
Reviewer Checklist