Generation of Job name for tests fixed

[k0taperk0t]

Change Overview

Instead of generating job name using format template + 5_random_symbols, we used this format only for first job, but for all next jobs format previous_name_of_job + 5_random_symbols has been used. As result sometime we could even to exceed limit in 64 symbols of K8s entity name.

Watch JobName field:

{"File":"pkg/log/log.go","Function":"github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pkg/log.Print","JobName":"kanister-test-job7t2t9","Line":165,"cluster_name":"85854027-f7b2-41e5-a820-92177102961c","hostname":"orbstack","level":"info","msg":"Deleted job","time":"2023-10-09T14:58:23.494576497Z"}
...
PASS: job_test.go:135: JobSuite.TestJobsBasic 10.399s
{"File":"pkg/log/log.go","Function":"github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pkg/log.Print","JobName":"kanister-test-job7t2t97fnq4","Line":165,"cluster_name":"85854027-f7b2-41e5-a820-92177102961c","hostname":"orbstack","level":"info","msg":"New job created","time":"2023-10-09T14:58:23.605349865Z"}
...
{"File":"pkg/log/log.go","Function":"github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pkg/log.Print","JobName":"kanister-test-job7t2t97fnq48s7k8js7h5jtz9k6nglff2b9tr5bhm","Line":165,"cluster_name":"85854027-f7b2-41e5-a820-92177102961c","hostname":"orbstack","level":"info","msg":"New job created","time":"2023-10-09T14:59:14.937041886Z"}
PASS: job_test.go:255: JobSuite.TestJobsReadOnlyVolumes 0.005s
{"File":"pkg/log/log.go","Function":"github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pkg/log.Print","JobName":"kanister-test-job7t2t97fnq48s7k8js7h5jtz9k6nglff2b9tr5bhm58bd9","Line":165,"cluster_name":"85854027-f7b2-41e5-a820-92177102961c","hostname":"orbstack","level":"info","msg":"New job created","time":"2023-10-09T14:59:14.93850743Z"}
PASS: job_test.go:235: JobSuite.TestJobsVolumes 0.000s

---

FAIL: job_test.go:194: JobSuite.TestJobsWaitAfterDelete

job_test.go:209:
c.Assert(err, IsNil)
... value *errors.StatusError = &errors.StatusError{ErrStatus:v1.Status{TypeMeta:v1.TypeMeta{Kind:"", APIVersion:""}, ListMeta:v1.ListMeta{SelfLink:"", ResourceVersion:"", Continue:"", RemainingItemCount:(*int64)(nil)}, Status:"Failure", Message:"unable to parse requirement: values[0][job-name]: Invalid value: "kanister-test-job7t2t97fnq48s7k8js7h5jtz9k6nglff2b9tr5bhm58bd9dj8cz": must be no more than 63 characters", Reason:"BadRequest", Details:(*v1.StatusDetails)(nil), Code:400}} ("unable to parse requirement: values[0][job-name]: Invalid value: "kanister-test-job7t2t97fnq48s7k8js7h5jtz9k6nglff2b9tr5bhm58bd9dj8cz": must be no more than 63 characters")

PR series:

• GoLand settings added to .gitignore #2376
• Makefile fixed for M1 Macs #2366
• Error reporting fixed for checking status of minio #2378
• Running of containerized commands refactored #2377
• Running make test locally using minio & minikube fixed #2379
• Getting of incorrect frame depth during logging fixed #2383
• => Generation of Job name for tests fixed #2386
• Support of read only mount of filesystem volumes added #2365

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• 🚧 Work in Progress
• 🌈 Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• 🐹 Trivial/Minor
• 🐛 Bugfix
• 🌻 Feature
• 🗺️ Documentation
• 🤖 Test

Test Plan

• 💪 Manual
• ⚡ Unit test
• 💚 E2E

[k0taperk0t]

I agree to the DCO for all the commits in this PR.

[viveksinghggits]

LGTM, but I don't we even need these tests anymore. I don't think kanister cretes job now.

[k0taperk0t]

LGTM, but I don't we even need these tests anymore. I don't think kanister cretes job now.

@viveksinghggits But these tests are still active. If Kanister doesn't create jobs anymore, probably whole this functionality worth to removed from Kanister?

[viveksinghggits]

LGTM, but I don't we even need these tests anymore. I don't think kanister cretes job now.

@viveksinghggits But these tests are still active. If Kanister doesn't create jobs anymore, probably whole this functionality worth to removed from Kanister?

Yes, that's what i should have said. Instead of just removing the tests we should remove that source file.

[k0taperk0t]

Yes, that's what i should have said. Instead of just removing the tests we should remove that source file.

Ok, I can do it in the next PR. This PR blocks #2365, please approve current PR, if it looks good.

[viveksinghggits]

Yes, that's what i should have said. Instead of just removing the tests we should remove that source file.

Ok, I can do it in the next PR. This PR blocks #2365, please approve current PR, if it looks good.

Before actually removing that let's first verify if it's actually not being used anywhere. I think it's not but we will have to verify that.

[viveksinghggits]

Yes, that's what i should have said. Instead of just removing the tests we should remove that source file.

Ok, I can do it in the next PR. This PR blocks #2365, please approve current PR, if it looks good.

Before actually removing that let's first verify if it's actually not being used anywhere. I think it's not but we will have to verify that.

[k0taperk0t]

Before actually removing that let's first verify if it's actually not being used anywhere. I think it's not but we will have to verify that.

@viveksinghggits OK. You commented this PR "LGTM". Could you approve it please? It blocks #2365 . We can figure out if we need to delete this functionality later.

[viveksinghggits]

Can you please create a GitHub issue to track removal of job related utilities if applicable.