✨ (deploy-image/v1alpha): Improve tests scaffolded for the controllers

[mogsie]

Motivation: #4135

• To(Not()) → NotTo() (It seems that NotTo is used a lot elsewhere in the repository)
• Use default eventually timeouts, so we don't need to send them everywhere
• Eventually(func() error) → Eventually(func(g Gomega)) And then use g.Expect inside those Eventually() functions
• Use Gomega assertions for the condition check, which is more robust

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mogsie. 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-sigs/prow repository.

[mogsie]

I have the possibility of rewriting that last eventually as follows:

Eventually(func(g Gomega) {
	conditions := []metav1.Condition{}
	g.Expect(busybox.Status.Conditions).To(ContainElement(
		HaveField("Type", Equal(typeAvailableBusybox)), &conditions))
	g.Expect(conditions).To(HaveLen(1), "Multiple conditions of type "+typeAvailableBusybox)
	g.Expect(conditions[0].Status).To(Equal(metav1.ConditionTrue))
	g.Expect(conditions[0].Reason).To(Equal("Reconciling"))
}).Should(Succeed())

This would improve the robustness of the test, as the test wouldn't be checking the non-computer friendly message but only the fields that constitute the API: Type, Status, Reason. It would also be testing for duplicates in the status.

The trick is that g.Expect().To(ContainElement(..., &conditions)) actually fills out the &conditions with the found elements, i.e. the one(s) that have the right Type. There should only be one in the status.conditions. This way it only looks for the condition that has the right Type and then later we assert that that type has the correct status and reason.

The older test would ignore multiple duplicate conditions (i.e. conditions of the same type), since it only would assert that one status matched.

I will add this too.

[camilamacedo86]

/lgtm

[camilamacedo86]

/ok-to-test

[varshaprasad96]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86, mogsie, varshaprasad96

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:

• OWNERS [camilamacedo86,varshaprasad96]

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