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

API v2 tests: usability improvements #5643

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 30, 2020

Conversation

edsantiago
Copy link
Member

  • Allow for descriptive comment in 't' invocations, making it
    easier to distinguish similar requests
  • Include test file basename (eg 40-pods) in 'ok/not ok' line
  • Always symlink $TMPDIR/test-apiv2.log to latest YYMMDDetc file
  • Include test result ('ok', 'not ok') in said log
  • When curl results are JSON, filter them through jq into log

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago [email protected]

* Allow for descriptive comment in 't' invocations, making it
  easier to distinguish similar requests
* Include test file basename (eg 40-pods) in 'ok/not ok' line
* Always symlink $TMPDIR/test-apiv2.log to latest YYMMDDetc file
* Include test result ('ok', 'not ok') in said log
* When curl results are JSON, filter them through jq into log

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

Failing in bindings test. @baude I'm not seeing how that could be something I did. Am assuming it's a flake, but if so I'd like your eyes on it to see if it can be fixed. (If it's my fault, hints welcome on where to look)

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

Another error that's unlikely to be mine:

podman exec preserve fds sanity check
...
 Timed out after 90.000s.
  Expected process to exit.  It did not

logs

Anyone seen that one before?

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Mar 27, 2020

I see that flake sometimes - but never tried tracking it down.

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks. I'll look into it next week.

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

Tests green. One flake was #4020 (reopened); filed #5665 for the bindings one

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Mar 30, 2020

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 30, 2020
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Mar 30, 2020

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, rhatdan

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 30, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 0fa01c8 into containers:master Mar 30, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 25, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 25, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants