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

test/e2e: check MC deployed on every node #446

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2019

Conversation

runcom
Copy link
Member

@runcom runcom commented Feb 17, 2019

Signed-off-by: Antonio Murdaca runcom@linux.com

- What I did

TestMCDeployed wasn't checking that the MC was indeed deployed on every
node (worker). Fix that by checking every node. The test is going to
take a little longer but it's more robust as well.

- How to verify it

run e2e

- Description for the changelog

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 17, 2019
@runcom
Copy link
Member Author

runcom commented Feb 17, 2019

Unit flake #417

/retest

continue
}
for _, line := range strings.Split(string(res), "\n") {
if strings.Contains(line, "completed update for config "+newMCName) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems odd to parse the log files for this; why not verify the currentConfig annotation?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Or for that matter, watch the worker machineconfigpool, which is doing just that.

Copy link
Member Author

@runcom runcom Feb 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

changed to watch for status changes for the pool (even if now it's intrinsically racy cause we may somehow be missing some status, for instance, we may very well miss the Updating status, or check the previous Updated status thinking all is good if we don't check Updating and so on). It was odd to check logs of the MCDs but to me it was more robust than checking status. Maybe checking currentConfig may instead be better. We may be using channels for syncronization for status updates but that complicates the things as well so let's just fix the test now making sure every node is updated

Copy link
Member Author

@runcom runcom Feb 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok changed to check currentConfig instead. (the pool status check is here though if you want to take a look c40af43)

@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-test-mcdeployed branch 2 times, most recently from c40af43 to 0f49594 Compare February 17, 2019 14:05
TestMCDeployed wasn't checking that the MC was indeed deployed on every
node (worker). Fix that by checking every node. The test is going to
take a little longer but it's more robust as well.

Signed-off-by: Antonio Murdaca <runcom@linux.com>
@runcom
Copy link
Member Author

runcom commented Feb 17, 2019

Haproxy flake

/retest

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 17, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cgwalters, runcom

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit f77bbb3 into openshift:master Feb 17, 2019
@runcom runcom deleted the fix-test-mcdeployed branch February 17, 2019 18:18
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. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. 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.

4 participants