fix: e2e test with kind by Raffo · Pull Request #6162 · kubernetes-sigs/external-dns

Raffo · 2026-02-01T14:14:27Z

What does it do ?

Looks like the end to end tested that I pushed in #5933 were so so wrong. I am not sure if I screwed up something upon push or if I really tested them wrong, but nonetheless, they didn't work.

This PR should fix them, I tested breaking it and then restoring it a couple of times, both locally and in action. I still would appreciate a careful review to make sure that things make sense.

~~Aaand of course they don't pass after many successful passes both locally and in CI. I guess they are flaky as hell. Moving this as draft and going to the drawing board again. Le sigh~~

I think I fixed it.

More

Yes, this PR title follows Conventional Commits
Yes, I added unit tests
Yes, I updated end user documentation accordingly

…pods

coveralls · 2026-02-01T14:20:44Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 22314723358

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
554 unchanged lines in 19 files lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 79.258%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
utils.go	2	97.1%
crd.go	2	67.3%
f5_transportserver.go	5	78.65%
openshift_route.go	11	83.59%
ingress.go	12	88.3%
f5_virtualserver.go	13	79.79%
istio_gateway.go	13	88.55%
crypto.go	15	67.9%
pdns/pdns.go	15	71.19%
contour_httpproxy.go	16	84.33%

Totals
Change from base Build 21559764040:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	16041
Relevant Lines:	20239

💛 - Coveralls

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-03T07:51:46Z

It's hard to run this tests in bash. Maybe worth to have a python dsl? I'm not sure where it is still green or actually failed

Testing DNS server with dig (with retries)...
job.batch/dns-server-test-job created
Waiting for DNS server test job to complete...
job.batch/dns-server-test-job condition met
DNS server test job results:
Testing DNS server at 172.18.0.2:5353
=== Testing DNS server with dig (retrying for up to 180s) ===
Attempt 1/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 2/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 3/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 4/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 5/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query successful: ;; communications error to 172.18.0.2#5353: timed out
SUCCESS: DNS server test completed successfully
job.batch "dns-server-test-job" deleted from default namespace
End-to-end test completed!

Raffo · 2026-02-04T07:49:38Z

@ivankatliarchuk hard to read you mean? I definitely don’t want a python wrapper, but I agree the output isn’t the best. I think I can make the output better, but running it locally wasn’t an issue for me. Just delete the cluster with kind if you have any, run the script. I do run everything in a vm though, not sure if this complicates people’s local dev, so I’d be eager to hear more from you.

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-04T09:27:24Z

Have a look at the output

DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 5/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query successful: ;; communications error to 172.18.0.2#5353: timed out <<<< FAIL
SUCCESS: DNS server test completed successfully <<<  SUCCESS
job.batch "dns-server-test-job" deleted from default n

Bash with log regexes can work for individual tests, but this approach doesn’t scale well if we decide to add more tests later.

Raffo · 2026-02-05T07:24:19Z

Yeah I get that but I took this approach exactly because I didn’t want to write a mega wrapper in go like I did for the end to end tests that I have in my private repo and that for reasons I didn’t want to opensource. Do you think it would make sense to get this in at least to have the tests fixed (even with the crappy output) and then work in another pr to convert them in go?

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-05T08:29:44Z

For sure we should fix the test first.

Raffo · 2026-02-26T17:29:59Z

@ivankatliarchuk I think this works? Is it terrible?

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-26T17:31:29Z

/lgtm

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-26T17:32:35Z

Results, seems like working. I was initially confused, that is trying so many attempts. But this is expected due to DNS propagation

Testing DNS server functionality...
Node IP: 172.18.0.2
Testing DNS server with dig (with retries)...
job.batch/dns-server-test-job created
Waiting for DNS server test job to complete...
job.batch/dns-server-test-job condition met
DNS server test job results:
Testing DNS server at 172.18.0.2:5353
=== Testing DNS server with dig (retrying for up to 180s) ===
Attempt 1/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 2/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 3/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 4/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 5/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 6/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query returned empty result, retrying in 10s...
Attempt 7/18: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record
DNS query successful: 10.244.0.7

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-26T17:33:00Z

DNS is working, is just takes some time to propagate to a node

ivankatliarchuk · 2026-02-26T17:34:43Z

scripts/e2e-test.sh

+          ATTEMPT=1
+          while [ \$ATTEMPT -le \$MAX_ATTEMPTS ]; do
+            echo "Attempt \$ATTEMPT/\$MAX_ATTEMPTS: Querying externaldns-e2e.external.dns A record"
+            RESULT=\$(dig @$NODE_IP -p 5353 externaldns-e2e.external.dns A +short +timeout=5 2>/dev/null)


maybe something like

dig @coredns.default.svc.cluster.local

If we are using coredns

you could validate, where the records added to etcd, something like

kubectl exec -it etcd-0 -- etcdctl get /skydns/dns/external --prefix --keys-only

I am not sure how this would add? Maybe you say it to reduce possible flakyness? I did it just with dig originally to make a test that was as close as possible to users 🤔

Yeah, not a big difference. Is goot too go as is.

For dig @coredns.default.svc.cluster.local (service DNS) the only difference with NODE_IP

Tests the actual path -> reflects how real workloads inside the cluster resolve DNS, which is what external-dns is supposed to serve

Ok cool, I think I understand your point of view now, but the change would also add a bit of complexity. I’ll merge like this, so we have working tests again.

Raffo · 2026-03-07T16:22:00Z

/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2026-03-07T16:22:07Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Raffo

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~~ [Raffo]

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

fix: e2e test with dnsPolicy ClusterFirstWithHostNet for hostNetwork …

61e02fa

…pods

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from mloiseleur February 1, 2026 14:14

k8s-ci-robot added the scripts Issues or PRs related to internal scripts label Feb 1, 2026

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from vflaux February 1, 2026 14:14

k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Feb 1, 2026

Raffo marked this pull request as draft February 1, 2026 14:40

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 1, 2026

Raffo changed the title ~~fix: e2e test with kind~~ [WIP] fix: e2e test with kind Feb 1, 2026

Raffo added 2 commits February 1, 2026 19:56

remove flakiness

017d19e

remove empty lines

7377ef6

Raffo marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2026 11:21

Raffo changed the title ~~[WIP] fix: e2e test with kind~~ fix: e2e test with kind Feb 2, 2026

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 2, 2026

fix tests

1c12d96

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 23, 2026

Raffo added 2 commits February 26, 2026 10:20

removed trailing line

04c18ee

Merge branch 'master' into fix-e2e

11f34f2

k8s-ci-robot assigned ivankatliarchuk Feb 26, 2026

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 26, 2026

ivankatliarchuk reviewed Feb 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

ivankatliarchuk mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2026

feat(pdns): support GetDomainFilter interface #6234

Merged

3 tasks

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 7, 2026

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 0507bb5 into kubernetes-sigs:master Mar 7, 2026
16 checks passed

Conversation

Raffo commented Feb 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What does it do ?

More

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 22314723358

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Raffo commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Raffo commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Raffo commented Feb 26, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 26, 2026

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Raffo Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivankatliarchuk Mar 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Raffo Mar 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Raffo commented Mar 7, 2026

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Raffo commented Feb 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Feb 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ivankatliarchuk commented Feb 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ivankatliarchuk Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading