🐛 e2e: bastion tests

[EmilienM]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Deploying a bastion consumes resources so we now do it in its own test.
From now, the rest of the tests won't have a bastion node.

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 #1821

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	4ff2cf8
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack/deploys/65d75cdd99e7a200098885b3
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1822--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[EmilienM]

/cc @lentzi90

[EmilienM]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-e2e-full-test

[mdbooth]

I was thinking of an entirely separate and more complete Bastion test. It would, e.g.:

• Create a Bastion, ensure it's created
• Redefine the Bastion, ensure it's rebuilt
• Remove the Bastion, ensure it's removed

It could run against a cluster with a single control plane node and no workers.

[EmilienM]

/hold
ok I can work on that.

[EmilienM]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-e2e-test

[mdbooth]

NICE! Some suggestions inline. From experience, adding the failure descriptions is important in practise, so I'd be grateful if you could add those.

I wondered if this should be its own top-level test, but given the issues we've been having with CI capacity I think adding it to an existing test is pragmatic.

One more thing: I think we also support modification of a bastion instance in-place. I believe we store a hash of the spec, and if it changes we delete and recreate the bastion automatically with the new spec. Assuming my memory is serving me well it would be good to have a test for that, too, but I'd be happy to have it either in this or a separate PR.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: EmilienM, mdbooth

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [mdbooth]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[lentzi90]

Very nice!

[EmilienM]

One more thing: I think we also support modification of a bastion instance in-place. I believe we store a hash of the spec, and if it changes we delete and recreate the bastion automatically with the new spec. Assuming my memory is serving me well it would be good to have a test for that, too, but I'd be happy to have it either in this or a separate PR.

No, unfortunately this doesn't work this way (yet): #1866

[k8s-ci-robot]

@EmilienM: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-e2e-full-test	1fba612	link	false	/test pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-e2e-full-test

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Details

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[lentzi90]

/lgtm

[EmilienM]

/hold cancel