Make Peer validation more comprehensive #3104
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3104 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 60.83% 52.07% -8.77%
==========================================
Files 295 457 +162
Lines 24892 51603 +26711
==========================================
+ Hits 15142 26870 +11728
- Misses 8095 22485 +14390
- Partials 1655 2248 +593
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
GraysonWu
force-pushed
the
add-peer-validation
branch
from
5a63daf
to
5865840
Compare
GraysonWu
force-pushed
the
add-peer-validation
branch
from
5865840
to
db62f64
Compare
Signed-off-by: wgrayson <[email protected]>
GraysonWu
force-pushed
the
add-peer-validation
branch
from
db62f64
to
ba1ed4c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
Not specific to this PR, but I feel it's a bit overkill to have so many testInvalidACNPXXXX e2e tests, which could have been tested by unit tests.
@GraysonWu @Dyanngg @antoninbas what you think?
| @@ -427,6 +427,46 @@ func testInvalidACNPAppliedToNotSetInAllRules(t *testing.T) { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func testInvalidACNPAppliedToGroupSetWithPodSelector(t *testing.T) { | |||
| invalidNpErr := fmt.Errorf("invalid Antrea ClusterNetworkPolicy with appliedTo set group with podSelector") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we should consider moving some e2e tests to unit tests if they don't require a whole system to validate the code. For example, the illegal inputs that can be validated by calling the validation function directly. This can enable greater converage with a table driven tests and reduce resources spent on e2e tests.
|
I agree with Quan, we should move these tests to unit tests |
|
Make sense to me too. I could open another PR to move those tests to unit tests. |
|
/test-all |
|
/test-integration |
Fixes #3084
Signed-off-by: wgrayson [email protected]