Skip to content

Proxy e2e test#296

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
jhadvig:proxy-e2e
Sep 27, 2019
Merged

Proxy e2e test#296
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
jhadvig:proxy-e2e

Conversation

@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jhadvig jhadvig commented Sep 17, 2019

Test scenario:

  • e2e test for setting NoProxy & HTTPProxy & HTTPSProxy to the Proxy CR and checking the new rolledout console deployment pod for corresponding environment variables (NO_PROXY & HTTP_PROXY & HTTPS_PROXY)

/assign @benjaminapetersen

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 17, 2019
benjaminapetersen
benjaminapetersen reviewed Sep 17, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment thread test/e2e/proxy_test.go
}

consoleDeployment, err := framework.GetConsoleDeployment(client)
if err != nil {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen Sep 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So can this run without the Proxy CR? This is a sufficient test?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen Sep 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I could see on our end that passing the envs to the deployment is sufficient.

But do we then need a test in console validating that it responds through the proxy?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@jhadvig jhadvig Sep 18, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We probably should. Lets talk about that :)

@benjaminapetersen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

benjaminapetersen commented Sep 19, 2019

/retest

@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 20, 2019

/retest

@jhadvig jhadvig changed the title [WIP] Proxy e2e test Proxy e2e test Sep 20, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-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 Sep 20, 2019
@jhadvig jhadvig force-pushed the proxy-e2e branch 2 times, most recently from 6a44418 to a69b897 Compare September 24, 2019 13:23
@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 24, 2019

@benjaminapetersen updated the PR, cause I noticed it was flaking. Should be fixed now. PTAL

@benjaminapetersen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

benjaminapetersen commented Sep 24, 2019

Prob a legit test fail?

providers_test.go:131: setting statuspageID to ''
=== RUN   TestProxy
waiting to reach settled state...
waiting to reach settled state...
waited 10 seconds to reach settled state...
--- FAIL: TestProxy (37.19s)
    proxy_test.go:63: waiting for the new console deployment with proxy environment variables...
    proxy_test.go:80: unable to find environment variable: wanted NO_PROXY
=== RUN   TestRemoved

@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 25, 2019

@benjaminapetersen thats the flake I've seen locally every N-th run of the test.. but with changes now I was not able to reproduce...investigating

@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 25, 2019

/retest

2 similar comments
@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 25, 2019

/retest

@jhadvig
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jhadvig commented Sep 26, 2019

/retest

@benjaminapetersen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

benjaminapetersen commented Sep 27, 2019

/lgtm

I think this does a good job proving that we do what we are supposed to do when given a proxy config.

Now, I'm still curious about a proxy test that validates that the cluster works and the console/components is/are responsive through the proxy. Was that still something being looked into?

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 27, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: benjaminapetersen, jhadvig

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:

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 27, 2019
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Sep 27, 2019

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit e4b38f1 into openshift:master Sep 27, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@spadgett spadgett Awaiting requested review from spadgett

1 more reviewer

@benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen

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/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.

5 participants

@jhadvig @benjaminapetersen @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-bot @openshift-merge-robot