🌱 Adds tests for InitImages #3233

joaopapereira · 2020-06-23T15:26:43Z

What this PR does / why we need it:
As per the issue #2871 some test coverage was missing from Client InitImages. This PR adds more testing coverage of the functionality of this method.

This PR also changes the fakeClusterClient to enable the injection of a fakeCertManagerClient

Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #2871

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-06-23T15:26:46Z

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-06-23T15:26:51Z

Welcome @joaopapereira!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-06-23T15:26:52Z

Hi @joaopapereira. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

joaopapereira · 2020-06-23T15:31:44Z

/check-cla

wfernandes · 2020-06-23T15:37:53Z

/assign

vincepri · 2020-06-23T17:22:47Z

/ok-to-test

joaopapereira · 2020-06-23T17:46:08Z

/check-cla

wfernandes

Thanks so much for adding these tests! I made a few suggestions but so far it's looking good. 🙂

wfernandes · 2020-06-23T20:58:36Z

cmd/clusterctl/client/init_test.go

+				config.NewProvider("some-core-provider", "some-core-url", clusterctlv1.CoreProviderType),
+			},
+			wantErr:              true,
+			expectedErrorMessage: "name cluster-api must be used with the CoreProvider type",


I suggest not asserting on the actual content of the error message but rather that an error occurred.

One reason is that the tests are a good source of documentation for the code. When I saw this, I went looking for the code that was returning this error only to find myself digging into the internals of config/providers_client.go in the validateProvider method.

Normally I lean towards testing the behavior that an error is expected to have occurred rather than an error with a specific message has occurred.

lol, it took me a minute to write this comment out, because I do agree with you. Usually when testing a single function I would also not "care" about the type of error being returned. But in this case (I came with the lense of someone that is looking for the first time to the code) the InitImages function relies in at least 2 other functions that have their own use cases for errors. So I went this route, because I found myself having to look throught these functions to find a way to make the test that would break the current implementation.
I added the assertion on the error message itself, because I wanted to make sure that these tests where failing for the correct reasons, and not just failing, specially because we are backfilling tests, and not TDDing.

This being said, if you still feel like there is no need to have this assertion I am happy to remove it 😄

Thanks for the explanation! Yeah...this is interesting because we aren't TDDing and instead backfilling the tests.

I think if there is potential for the given inputs in the test to produce different errors (due to the nested calls to other functions) then I guess it's fine to specify the error message or maybe that might hint to constraining the inputs further.

I do agree the important thing is to ensure that the test is failing for the correct reason. I see that this error is bubbled up through getComponentsByName which could have returned an error from parsing the provider name. But since a valid provider name is used it goes past that to c.configClient.Providers().Get(name, providerType) which then surfaces the error.

I guess we can't even use the errors.Cause for something like this.

Hmm...this is definitely tripping me up as well and making me really think about this.

The only other concern is that I don't want other contributors to follow the pattern of performing substring matching on errors.

I see that @fabriziopandini 👍 so I think it's fine for now.

Feel free to squash commits regardless.

cmd/clusterctl/client/init_test.go

cmd/clusterctl/client/client_test.go

cmd/clusterctl/client/init_test.go

joaopapereira · 2020-06-24T22:04:41Z

@wfernandes thanks for the review. Updated the PR with your comments

joaopapereira · 2020-06-24T22:05:18Z

I signed it

fabriziopandini · 2020-06-25T09:08:23Z

@joaopapereira thanks for this PR!
LGTM pending

addressing @wfernandes comment on error messages
squash

ncdc · 2020-06-25T13:42:55Z

/check-cla

joaopapereira · 2020-06-26T15:26:02Z

/check-cla

wfernandes

Found one minor thing but don't want to block the PR on it 🙂. Leaving approval for @fabriziopandini
/lgtm

wfernandes · 2020-06-26T16:05:17Z

cmd/clusterctl/client/init_test.go

+				kubeconfigContext: "mgmt-context",
+			},
+			wantErr:              true,
+			certManagerImagesErr: fmt.Errorf("failed to get cert images"),


minor nit: since we aren't really formatting the string.

Suggested change

certManagerImagesErr: fmt.Errorf("failed to get cert images"),

certManagerImagesErr: errors.New("failed to get cert images"),

I changed that in my last push

- Add new functionality to creation of fake clusters to allow the cert manager client to be injected - Add constructor for fake certificate manager client

fabriziopandini · 2020-06-26T17:10:56Z

As per #3233 (comment) comment, I'm fine with the code as it is. We can eventually remove in future if this is used as precedence.
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-06-26T17:11:07Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini

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:

~~cmd/clusterctl/OWNERS~~ [fabriziopandini]

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

wfernandes · 2020-06-26T18:14:42Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot requested review from benmoss and JoelSpeed June 23, 2020 15:26

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot assigned wfernandes Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 23, 2020

wfernandes reviewed Jun 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

joaopapereira force-pushed the issue/2871 branch from bcbffbc to a91dd51 Compare June 24, 2020 22:11

joaopapereira changed the title ~~🌱 Adds tests for InitImages~~ 🌱 Adds tests for InitImages Jun 26, 2020

joaopapereira force-pushed the issue/2871 branch from a91dd51 to c7aa27a Compare June 26, 2020 14:59

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jun 26, 2020

wfernandes reviewed Jun 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 26, 2020

joaopapereira force-pushed the issue/2871 branch from c7aa27a to f06f486 Compare June 26, 2020 16:58

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 26, 2020

joaopapereira force-pushed the issue/2871 branch from f06f486 to abef442 Compare June 26, 2020 16:58

Adds tests for InitImages

42c3212

- Add new functionality to creation of fake clusters to allow the cert manager client to be injected - Add constructor for fake certificate manager client

joaopapereira force-pushed the issue/2871 branch from abef442 to 42c3212 Compare June 26, 2020 16:59

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 26, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 26, 2020

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 8f0d03b into kubernetes-sigs:master Jun 26, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

🌱 Adds tests for InitImages #3233

🌱 Adds tests for InitImages #3233

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

wfernandes commented Jun 23, 2020

vincepri commented Jun 23, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

wfernandes left a comment

wfernandes Jun 23, 2020

joaopapereira Jun 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

wfernandes Jun 25, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 24, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 24, 2020

fabriziopandini commented Jun 25, 2020

ncdc commented Jun 25, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 26, 2020

wfernandes left a comment

wfernandes Jun 26, 2020

joaopapereira Jun 26, 2020

fabriziopandini commented Jun 26, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 26, 2020

wfernandes commented Jun 26, 2020

	certManagerImagesErr: fmt.Errorf("failed to get cert images"),
	certManagerImagesErr: errors.New("failed to get cert images"),

🌱 Adds tests for InitImages #3233

🌱 Adds tests for InitImages #3233

Conversation

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 23, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

wfernandes commented Jun 23, 2020

vincepri commented Jun 23, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 23, 2020

wfernandes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wfernandes Jun 23, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joaopapereira Jun 24, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wfernandes Jun 25, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joaopapereira commented Jun 24, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 24, 2020

fabriziopandini commented Jun 25, 2020

ncdc commented Jun 25, 2020

joaopapereira commented Jun 26, 2020

wfernandes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wfernandes Jun 26, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joaopapereira Jun 26, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabriziopandini commented Jun 26, 2020

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 26, 2020

wfernandes commented Jun 26, 2020

joaopapereira Jun 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading