It looks like it tests two pods sharing the same volume, but the goal is
actually the opposite - two pods with the same inline volume definition
should get separate volumes.
* De-share the Handler struct in core API
An upcoming PR adds a handler that only applies on one of these paths.
Having fields that don't work seems bad.
This never should have been shared. Lifecycle hooks are like a "write"
while probes are more like a "read". HTTPGet and TCPSocket don't really
make sense as lifecycle hooks (but I can't take that back). When we add
gRPC, it is EXPLICITLY a health check (defined by gRPC) not an arbitrary
RPC - so a probe makes sense but a hook does not.
In the future I can also see adding lifecycle hooks that don't make
sense as probes. E.g. 'sleep' is a common lifecycle request. The only
option is `exec`, which requires having a sleep binary in your image.
* Run update scripts
Copying from pvcBlock swapped name and namespace (breaking the PVC test case)
and some references to the pvcBlock variable were left unchanged (incorrect
annotations for test failures).
During PR review it was pointed out that the branches for ephemeral
vs. persistent make the test harder to read. Therefore all code that depends on
if checks gets moved into two different versions of the test, one hat runs for
ephemeral volumes and one for persistent volumes, with skip statements at the
beginning.
* Cleanup FeatureGate skippers
* Perform changes requested by review
* some more review related changes
* Rename skipper functions to make code more readable
* add utilfeature back in
Conceptually, snapshots have to be taken while the pod and thus the volume
exist. Snapshotting has an issue where flushing of data is not guaranteed while
the volume is still staged on the node, so the test relied on deleting the pod
and checking for the volume to be unused. That part of the test cannot be done
for ephmeral volumes.
This adds a new test pattern and uses it for the inline volume tests. Because
the kind of volume now varies more, validation of the mount or block device is
always done by the caller of TestEphemeral.
Besides "subPath should unmount if pod is gracefully deleted while kubelet is
down" we also need a special case for "subPath should unmount if pod is force
deleted while kubelet is down".
This fixes a test failure in https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-storage-kubernetes#gce-serial
It shouldn't make any difference, but it's better to actually test that
assumption.
All existing tests which create pods get converted by skipping the explicit PVC
creation for the ephemeral case and instead modifying the test pod so that it
has a volume claim template with the same spec as the PVC.
The feature gate gets locked to "true", with the goal to remove it in two
releases.
All code now can assume that the feature is enabled. Tests for "feature
disabled" are no longer needed and get removed.
Some code wasn't using the new helper functions yet. That gets changed while
touching those lines.
When adding the ephemeral volume feature, the special case for
PersistentVolumeClaim volume sources in kubelet's host path and node
limits checks was overlooked. An ephemeral volume source is another
way of referencing a claim and has to be treated the same way.
The issue on both tests is that before the refactor we had a method that
was creating the `StorageClass` manifest only, this manifest was used
later to be created by `TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC`, after
the refactor we're ensuring that the `StorageClass` exists as a resource
before calling `TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC` however this
method is still attempting to create it, that's the reason behind the
error: `resourceVersion should not be set on objects to be created
This issue wasn't caught before because
`TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC` is creating the StorageClass
without the common utility function, the solution is to remove the
snippet that attempts to create the StorageClass againo
