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

Add unit test for pkg/agent/route #4295

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2022
Merged

Conversation

tnqn
Copy link
Member

@tnqn tnqn commented Oct 13, 2022

Signed-off-by: Quan Tian [email protected]

For #4142

pkg/agent/util/net.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tnqn tnqn marked this pull request as draft October 13, 2022 18:45
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 13, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #4295 (311478b) into main (0307eff) will increase coverage by 1.15%.
The diff coverage is 45.57%.

❗ Current head 311478b differs from pull request most recent head 3ad73fd. Consider uploading reports for the commit 3ad73fd to get more accurate results

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4295      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.60%   61.75%   +1.15%     
==========================================
  Files         378      389      +11     
  Lines       54850    55654     +804     
==========================================
+ Hits        33240    34371    +1131     
+ Misses      19095    18673     -422     
- Partials     2515     2610      +95     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
e2e-tests 39.48% <21.84%> (?)
integration-tests 34.35% <45.63%> (-0.14%) ⬇️ Carriedforward from 6b51f29
kind-e2e-tests 42.51% <31.73%> (-5.97%) ⬇️ Carriedforward from 6b51f29
unit-tests 45.48% <0.00%> (-0.51%) ⬇️ Carriedforward from 6b51f29

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pkg/agent/nodeportlocal/rules/iptable_rule.go 55.78% <0.00%> (ø)
pkg/agent/util/net_linux.go 33.77% <ø> (+1.51%) ⬆️
pkg/agent/route/route_linux.go 40.37% <33.33%> (-10.10%) ⬇️
pkg/agent/util/netlink/netlink_linux.go 41.66% <41.66%> (ø)
pkg/agent/util/iptables/iptables.go 58.96% <73.33%> (+13.36%) ⬆️
pkg/agent/util/ipset/ipset.go 79.66% <85.00%> (+10.43%) ⬆️
pkg/agent/proxy/endpointslicecache.go 0.00% <0.00%> (-83.60%) ⬇️
...kg/apiserver/registry/stats/multicastgroup/rest.go 11.59% <0.00%> (-79.32%) ⬇️
pkg/agent/controller/networkpolicy/packetin.go 22.29% <0.00%> (-50.68%) ⬇️
...g/agent/controller/serviceexternalip/controller.go 35.83% <0.00%> (-43.35%) ⬇️
... and 110 more

@tnqn tnqn force-pushed the unit-test-for-ipset branch 2 times, most recently from 1c86482 to 989fc96 Compare October 14, 2022 05:07
@tnqn tnqn mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2022
37 tasks
@tnqn tnqn force-pushed the unit-test-for-ipset branch 4 times, most recently from 95492e8 to 735a773 Compare October 17, 2022 07:01
@tnqn tnqn marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2022 14:30
@tnqn tnqn force-pushed the unit-test-for-ipset branch 2 times, most recently from b611ffd to b359f49 Compare October 18, 2022 02:29
@tnqn
Copy link
Member Author

tnqn commented Oct 18, 2022

/test-all

@tnqn tnqn requested a review from antoninbas October 18, 2022 15:10
@tnqn tnqn force-pushed the unit-test-for-ipset branch 2 times, most recently from 2c6d072 to 276ec69 Compare October 18, 2022 17:33
Copy link
Contributor

@antoninbas antoninbas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

overall lgtm

I assume that changes outside of route_linux_test.go are cosmetic changes to allow for writing unit tests

It seems that code coverage has some issues since it reports that coverage will decrease when we merge this PR? Is it addressed by #4226 or it some other issue?

Comment on lines +93 to +95
Restore(data string, flush bool, useIPv6 bool) error

Save() ([]byte, error)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can you explain why Save returns a []byte but Restore takes a string as parameter? Intuitively the 2 functions should be "symmetric".

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For Restore, if we use []byte as the argument type, it's difficult to know what's the actual argument the method was called with when the test fails. The error message would show two long slices of bytes which are not readable, and developer needs to change the argument type like I do in this patch to get what's wrong.
For Save, we could also change it to return string, but the above readability issue doesn't exist as we could convert the returned []byte to string in test code. Since exec.Commandreturns []byte and the only consumer dumpIPTables uses []byte, I didn't make the change to avoid two conversions.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let me know if you think making them consistent is necessary.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's fine

)

func getIPNet(cidr string) *net.IPNet {
_, ipNet, _ := net.ParseCIDR(cidr)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: maybe make this function getIPNetOrDie and panic if there is a parsing error

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just found there is already a util func MustParseCIDR doing what you described, changed to use that function.

@tnqn
Copy link
Member Author

tnqn commented Oct 19, 2022

I assume that changes outside of route_linux_test.go are cosmetic changes to allow for writing unit tests

It seems that code coverage has some issues since it reports that coverage will decrease when we merge this PR? Is it addressed by #4226 or it some other issue?

Yes, all changes in this patch are for unit tests.
It should improve the coverage about 1.8%, there is some issue in codecov that it reported wrong improvement in comments, but the absolute number xx.xx% in checks like below are correct. I don't know the root cause of wrong report yet, @wenqiq is working on it, #4226 probably won't fix it.

codecov/project/antrea-unit-tests Successful in 2s — xx.xx% (+yy.yy%) compared to ...

@tnqn tnqn requested a review from hongliangl October 19, 2022 06:15
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
//go:build !windows
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I remember that library netlink is only suitable on Linux, and there are some limitations in darwin.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With the linux suffix in the file name, this file will only be compiled on linux, I have removed the build tag.

return netlink.NeighDel(neigh)
}

func (c *Client) LinkByName(name string) (netlink.Link, error) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are some other exising usage from netlink package in net_linux.go, are they planned to be converted to functions provided in this interface?

Besides, some other packages may use functions like netlink.LinkByName directly ( not calling net.LinkByName()), so is it expected to give netlink.Interface as parameter to those callers, e.g., pkg/agent/cniserver/interface_configuration_linux.go

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, when we write tests for them in the future, they will have to use the interface.

@@ -94,7 +95,9 @@ type Client struct {
nodeConfig *config.NodeConfig
networkConfig *config.NetworkConfig
noSNAT bool
ipt *iptables.Client
ipt iptables.Interface
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe name it to iptables

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Personally I'm fine with either but the variable was named ipt since the begining and the PR is for unit testing, not naming style adjustment, so I would prefer keeping it as was to avoid unrelated change.

@tnqn
Copy link
Member Author

tnqn commented Oct 19, 2022

/skip-all

@tnqn tnqn merged commit 28f0fac into antrea-io:main Oct 19, 2022
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.

5 participants