Skip to content

🌱 test: Add dedicated unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest #5675

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2025
Merged

🌱 test: Add dedicated unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest #5675

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2025

Conversation

@fangge1212
Copy link
Contributor

@fangge1212 fangge1212 commented Sep 22, 2025 •
edited by AndiDog
Loading

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

The unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest are more lightweight and faster than testing various CPU option configurations through the larger CreateInstance function.

This commit refactors the existing tests by moving the specific CPU option test cases from TestCreateInstance into a new, more focused TestGetInstanceCPUOptionsRequest function. A single test case remains in TestCreateInstance to ensure the integration between the functions is correct.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist:

  • includes emoji in title

Release note:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Sep 22, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 22, 2025

Hi @fangge1212. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Sep 22, 2025
@fangge1212 fangge1212 force-pushed the add_unit_tests branch 3 times, most recently from 56003d5 to c28d7ea Compare September 24, 2025 03:18
AndiDog
AndiDog reviewed Oct 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AndiDog AndiDog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/ok-to-test

pkg/cloud/services/ec2/instances_test.go Outdated
func TestGetInstanceCPUOptionsRequest (t *testing.T) {
testCases := []struct {
name string
instance *infrav1.Instance
Copy link
Contributor

@AndiDog AndiDog Oct 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's use only the infrav1.CPUOptions type here, since the rest of infrav1.Instance isn't even used in this test.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@fangge1212 fangge1212 Oct 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are right. Updated. Thanks.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Oct 15, 2025
@fangge1212 fangge1212 force-pushed the add_unit_tests branch 4 times, most recently from 0c130b1 to 868be8c Compare October 16, 2025 13:29
@fangge1212
test: Add dedicated unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest
090a6d9 
The unit tests for `getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest` are more
lightweight and faster than testing various CPU option
configurations through the larger `CreateInstance` function.

This commit refactors the existing tests by moving the specific
CPU option test cases from `TestCreateInstance` into a new, more
focused `TestGetInstanceCPUOptionsRequest` function. A single test
case remains in `TestCreateInstance` to ensure the integration
between the functions is correct.

Signed-off-by: Fangge Jin <[email protected]>
@AndiDog
Copy link
Contributor

AndiDog commented Oct 16, 2025

Looks like an unrelated ROSA test failure. Maybe it's flaky, so let's try again.

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-test

@AndiDog AndiDog changed the title 🌱test: Add dedicated unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest 🌱 test: Add dedicated unit tests for getInstanceCPUOptionsRequest Oct 16, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Oct 16, 2025
@AndiDog
Copy link
Contributor

AndiDog commented Oct 16, 2025

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 16, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 16, 2025

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: bb56bbe701f5e2856dadbcf7f4ec09b55f4b590d

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 16, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AndiDog

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 16, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 6f867be into kubernetes-sigs:main Oct 16, 2025
25 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@AndiDog AndiDog AndiDog left review comments

@nrb nrb Awaiting requested review from nrb

@richardcase richardcase Awaiting requested review from richardcase

Assignees

@AndiDog AndiDog

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@fangge1212 @k8s-ci-robot @AndiDog