Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
e2e: make running subsets of e2e tests more organized #1512
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
e2e: make running subsets of e2e tests more organized #1512
Changes from all commits
9ccdbf3
016a57a
5513302
5347665
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 don't have a good suggestion but it looks that now these node descriptions have a lot of repeating words. Since each description is modified by this PR, I was wondering if it made sense to reword them a bit. How does the output look for a device when all tests are run?
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.
Well, I also thought about this matter, and have been thinking for a long time after you wrote this comment, but I could not think either.
I took a look e2e tests in Kubernetes, but they also repeat in many cases.
e.g.
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.
Well, in our case, we have many layers so.. it would look dirtier though..
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.
https://github.com/intel/intel-device-plugins-for-kubernetes/actions/runs/6242677139/job/16949010559#step:6:170
https://github.com/intel/intel-device-plugins-for-kubernetes/actions/runs/6242677139/job/16949010559#step:6:222
Well, honestly, to me, it looks fine though..
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.
We can keep it as it is but I feel it could be optimized. Like: how many times QAT is mentioned on that row? Or, would
ginkgo.Describe("[Device:dlb] plugin", describe)
be any worse? Just thinking out loud.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.
Umm, that is not related to this PR..! They are already mentioned multiple times without the labels.. :(
Do you want me to refine that in general?
Actually it was what I was thinking at first,, but then have no idea for [Resource] or [App] because some verbs (e.g. 'deploys') or 'When' should be before the labels...
For example,
To me,, this looked more messy because labels seem like to be in random places...
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.
My original comment was just "something for you to think about". It's not directly related to this PR but here we are modifying these lines so there could be an opportunity to have refinements included in the same changes.