test: add some audit tests

[sozercan]

Signed-off-by: Sertac Ozercan [email protected]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, using fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when the PR gets merged):
related #2453

Special notes for your reviewer:

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 53.45% // Head: 53.73% // Increases project coverage by +0.28% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (6c5e9bd) compared to base (bed335f).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2489      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.45%   53.73%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines       10196    10196              
==========================================
+ Hits         5450     5479      +29     
+ Misses       4329     4299      -30     
- Partials      417      418       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	53.73% <ø> (+0.28%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/readiness/object_tracker.go	83.98% <0.00%> (+1.06%)	⬆️
pkg/audit/manager.go	4.55% <0.00%> (+3.48%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[maxsmythe]

Thanks for starting to add tests!

We probably want to test the actual auditing logic at some point, but as long as we're not closing the bug.

Only blocking concerns are nits about using t.Run()

[maxsmythe]

We probably want to test the round-tripping of writing/reading list results in order to catch inconsistencies (since the reading/writing logic is necessarily coupled).

Doing this would probably require some refactoring, which I could see being part of a larger effort later.

[sozercan]

are we okay to do this as a follow-up?

[sozercan]

We probably want to test the actual auditing logic at some point, but as long as we're not closing the bug.

Yes, these are just quick initial tests that don't require dealing with fake/mock clients. This is not closing the issue.

[maxsmythe]

LGTM