This releases the underlying resource sooner and ensures that another consumer
can get scheduled without being influenced by a decision that was made for the
previous consumer.
An alternative would have been to have the apiserver trigger the deallocation
whenever it sees the `status.reservedFor` getting reduced to zero. But that
then also triggers deallocation when kube-scheduler removes the last
reservation after a failed scheduling cycle. In that case we want to keep the
claim allocated and let the kube-scheduler decide on a case-by-case basis which
claim should get deallocated.
add integration test to wait for json without value
refactor JSON condition value parsing and validating
adjusting test to reflect the error message refactoring
ginkgo.By should be used for steps in the test flow. Creating and deleting CDI
files happens in parallel to that. If reported via ginkgo.By, progress reports
look weird because they contain e.g. step "waiting for...." (from the main
test, which is still on-going) and end with "creating CDI file" (which is
already completed).
This avoids the surprise of identical authorization checks within a
policy evaluating to different decisions during the same admission
pass, and reduces the overhead of repeatedly referencing the same
authorization check.
This runs workloads that are labeled as "integration-test". The apiserver and
scheduler are only started once per unique configuration, followed by each
workload using that configuration. This makes execution faster. In contrast to
benchmarking, we care less about starting with a clean slate for each test.
Merely deleting the namespace is not enough:
- Workloads might rely on the garbage collector to get rid of obsolete objects,
so we should run it to be on the safe side.
- Pods must be force-deleted because kubelet is not running.
- Finally, the namespace controller is needed to get rid of
deleted namespaces.
* Skip terminal Pods with a deletion timestamp from the Daemonset sync
Change-Id: I64a347a87c02ee2bd48be10e6fff380c8c81f742
* Review comments and fix integration test
Change-Id: I3eb5ec62bce8b4b150726a1e9b2b517c4e993713
* Include deleted terminal pods in history
Change-Id: I8b921157e6be1c809dd59f8035ec259ea4d96301
* test comment should match the code in podgc
* Update test/integration/podgc/podgc_test.go
Co-authored-by: Michał Woźniak <mimowo@users.noreply.github.com>
* test comment should match the code in podgc
---------
Co-authored-by: Michał Woźniak <mimowo@users.noreply.github.com>
The exception comments were added due to a false positive in
staticcheck. This has since been rectified.
Signed-off-by: Madhav Jivrajani <madhav.jiv@gmail.com>
The failure message becomes nicer. Found with the new ginkgolinter, for
example:
test/e2e/apps/cronjob.go:113:3: ginkgo-linter: wrong length assertion; consider using `gomega.Expect(jobs.Items).To(gomega.BeEmpty())` instead (ginkgolinter)
gomega.Expect(jobs.Items).To(gomega.HaveLen(0))
^
The failure message becomes a bit nicer. Found by the new ginkgolinter, for
example:
test/e2e/windows/memory_limits.go:160:2: ginkgo-linter: wrong boolean assertion; consider using `gomega.Eventually(ctx, func() bool {
eventList, err := f.ClientSet.CoreV1().Events(f.Namespace.Name).List(ctx, metav1.ListOptions{})
...
}, 3*time.Minute, 10*time.Second).Should(gomega.BeTrue())` instead (ginkgolinter)
"gomega.Expect" is not the same as "assert" in C: it always has to be combined
with a statement of what is expected.
Found with the new ginkgolinter, for example:
test/e2e/node/pod_resize.go:242:3: ginkgo-linter: "Expect": missing assertion method. Expected "Should()", "To()", "ShouldNot()", "ToNot()" or "NotTo()" (ginkgolinter)
gomega.Expect(found == true)
NOTE: we are not installing the ecr-credential-provider binary
itself here we are, we need to do it out-of-band from the test
suite itself before it runs.
Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>
Previously, we were trying to patch the deployment's ready replicas by
changing it to 0, at the same time we have 2 available replicas.
Therefore, this test fails since the ready replicas is less than the
available replicas. As a fix, we make the number of ready replicas equals to the number
of available ones.
Signed-off-by: AhmedGrati <ahmedgrati1999@gmail.com>
