Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix flaky UT #176

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 18, 2024
Merged

fix flaky UT #176

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 18, 2024

Conversation

mshitrit
Copy link
Member

Fixing flaky UT, and removing VA logic since SNR does not delete VA's anymore

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2024

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mshitrit

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:

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

@mshitrit
Copy link
Member Author

/test 4.14-openshift-e2e

@razo7
Copy link
Member

razo7 commented Jan 18, 2024

Can you separate fixing flaky UT, and removing VA logic into two commits? It would be easier for future us to know if flaky UT is related to VA logic. Do you happen to understand why this unit test is flaky?

@mshitrit
Copy link
Member Author

Can you separate fixing flaky UT, and removing VA logic into two commits?

Sure done.

Do you happen to understand why this unit test is flaky?

Not sure if you refer to a specific failure regarding the VA or in general.
In any case in general most of the flakiness is due to sync issues (i.e mostly fetching a resource before it has reached the desired state).
Regarding the VAs it seems like a waste of time dealing with syncing with them when they are not needed in any case anymore.

@mshitrit
Copy link
Member Author

/test 4.14-openshift-e2e

@razo7
Copy link
Member

razo7 commented Jan 18, 2024

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 18, 2024
@mshitrit mshitrit marked this pull request as ready for review January 18, 2024 12:24
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from clobrano and slintes January 18, 2024 12:24
@mshitrit mshitrit changed the title [WIP] fix flaky UT fix flaky UT Jan 18, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 4336c2b into medik8s:main Jan 18, 2024
18 checks passed
}

func verifyNoEvent(eventType, reason, message string) {
isEventMatch := isEventOccurred(eventType, reason, message)
ExpectWithOffset(1, isEventMatch).To(BeFalse())
EventuallyWithOffset(1, func() bool {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be Consistently I guess?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice catch, thanks.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here: #178

@mshitrit mshitrit deleted the fix-flaky-ut branch June 23, 2024 10:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants