Add command to run single rekt test in the e2e-debug script

[prakrit55]

Fixes #7204

Proposed Changes

• Added command to run single test

Pre-review Checklist

• At least 80% unit test coverage
• E2E tests for any new behavior
• Docs PR for any user-facing impact
• Spec PR for any new API feature
• Conformance test for any change to the spec

Release Note

Docs

[knative-prow]

Hi @prakrit55. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative 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/test-infra repository.

[Cali0707]

Thanks for the great start @prakrit55 !

/ok-to-test

[Cali0707]

nit:

Suggested change

	success
	success

[Leo6Leo]

Suggested change

	go_test_e2e -timeout=30m -run="${test_name}" "${test_dir}/..." || fail_test "Test(s) failed"
	go_test_e2e -timeout=30m -run="${test_name}" "${test_dir}" || fail_test "Test(s) failed"

[Cali0707]

@Leo6Leo I don't agree with this change, the /... allows for matching tests in subdirectories to also be run. I think leaving this as is might make it easier for users to use the e2e-debug.sh script. WDYT?

[Leo6Leo]

The reason why I remove that is:

1. We already specify which test to run by passing test_name.
2. If we add the /..., which means a lot of "empty" tests will be run unless we specify the exact folder that the test_name is located

Example:
With the command ./hack/e2e-debug.sh TestBrokerWithManyTriggers ./test/rekt

Running go test with args: -tags=e2e -count=1 -race -timeout=30m -run=TestBrokerWithManyTriggers ./test/rekt/...

EMPTY test/rekt/features/sequence
EMPTY test/rekt/features/sinkbinding
EMPTY test/rekt/features/source
EMPTY test/rekt/features/trigger
EMPTY test/rekt/features/knconf
EMPTY test/rekt/features/broker
EMPTY test/rekt/resources/addressable
EMPTY test/rekt/features/channel
EMPTY test/rekt/resources/account_role
PASS test/rekt.TestBrokerWithManyTriggers/Broker_with_many_triggers/test_default_broker_with_many_attribute_triggers/Prerequisite (0.00s)
...

To address your point:
We could introduce a flag or an environment variable that decides whether to include subdirectories in the test run. This way, users can choose the behavior that best suits their current needs, whether it's running a specific test or a broader suite of tests. This will balances the need for specificity and efficiency with the flexibility to run more comprehensive tests when needed. how does that sound? @Cali0707

[Cali0707]

I guess I personally think the EMPTY tests aren't an issue, but if you prefer it this way then I am happy to go with your preference

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c8f4624) 76.74% compared to head (0ad46df) 76.79%.
Report is 26 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7426      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.74%   76.79%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         253      253              
  Lines       13916    14098     +182     
==========================================
+ Hits        10680    10826     +146     
- Misses       2702     2732      +30     
- Partials      534      540       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Leo6Leo]

Great work and thanks for the contribution @prakrit55 !
I don't see any problems with this code
/lgtm
/cc @pierDipi @Cali0707 @creydr

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: creydr, prakrit55

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:

• hack/OWNERS [creydr]

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