This also revealed that the regex for Context was too generous and would
catch things like SecurityContext or ContextWithFoo(...) calls
This ensures that test suites with a ineligible tag in their top-level
Describe will be rejected from promotion to conformance
If there are tags in the test name that describe qualities of the
test that make it ineligible for conformance, raise an error. This
is basically the "skip list" that heptio's e2e image used to use.
Thankfully all of our existing Conformance tests lack these tags. I
considered added [Slow] to the list, but let's save that for another
day.
At the moment, Windows cannot mount individual files into Containers, which means
that the Kubelet-managed hosts file cannot be mounted into the Container, causing
the "should provide DNS for the cluster" test to fail.
This test separates the hosts entries checks from the mentioned test to a new test.
Put into OWNERS files what has effectively been happening
for the past few months, we review and shepherd PR's
through other SIG reviewers before bringing to sig-arch
for a final /approve.
The goal is to eventually grow approvers when it's been
demonstrated that we have sufficient context.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 67100, 67426). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
porting e2e_node lifecycle testcases into e2e folder under common
a) Shifted (and renamed) file existing in e2e_node to e2e/common.
b) Added these tests to the conformance suite:
- "should execute poststart exec hook properly"
- "should execute prestop exec hook properly"
- "should execute poststart http hook properly"
- "should execute prestop http hook properly"
[reference issue](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/67086) explaining the effort.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 67071, 66906, 66722, 67276, 67039). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Promoting "[sig-storage] Secrets should be able to mount in a volume regardless of a different secret existing with same name in different namespace" to Conformance
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
An consolidated effort to resolve the issue https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/66875
> _[sig-storage] Secrets should be able to mount in a volume regardless of a different secret existing with same name in different namespace_
Promoting mentioned e2e test for Conformance as it -
- Validates that secret with same name can be created in different namespaces but secrets which reside in same namespace as that of pod can be only be accessed from volume mounted in the container.
- Improves api coverage including prioritized Pod API lists. https://github.com/cncf/k8s-conformance/issues/220#issuecomment-393344061
> GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}/log
GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}
POST /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
PUT /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}/status
DELETE /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
DELETE /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
Fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
No Flakes Found.
```
• [SLOW TEST:16.326 seconds]
[sig-storage] Secrets
/home/vagrant/go-workspace/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/_output/local/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/common/secrets_volume.go:33
should be able to mount in a volume regardless of a different secret existing with same name in different namespace [NodeConformance]
/home/vagrant/go-workspace/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/_output/local/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/common/secrets_volume.go:86
------------------------------
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Aug 7 07:12:44.133: INFO: Running AfterSuite actions on all node
Aug 7 07:12:44.134: INFO: Running AfterSuite actions on node 1
Ran 1 of 1020 Specs in 16.441 seconds
SUCCESS! -- 1 Passed | 0 Failed | 0 Pending | 1019 Skipped PASS
All tests passed...
Will keep running them until they fail.
This was attempt #40
No, seriously... you can probably stop now.
```
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
/area conformance
@kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 61212, 66369, 66446, 66895, 66969). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Promoting configmap binarydata support [NodeConformance] test to conformance
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
**e2e:** _[sig-storage] ConfigMap binary data should be reflected in volume [NodeConformance]_
Promotes mentioned e2e to conformance as it -
1. Validates ConfigMap's binarydata support effectively
2. Improves API Coverage for prioritized api lists. (https://github.com/cncf/k8s-conformance/issues/220#issuecomment-393344061)
> GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}
GET /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}/log
POST /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
PUT /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}/status
DELETE /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods
DELETE /api/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/pods/{name}
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
Fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
No Flakes found.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
/area conformance
@kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews
