System Test - Quadlet kube oneshot #20363
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ygalblum The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
@vrothberg this is the missing test from #20337 |
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-kube-oneshot-test
branch
from
cd420e9 to
970b1f3
Compare
test/system/252-quadlet.bats
Outdated
|
|
||
| run_podman container inspect --format "{{(index .Mounts 0).Type}}" $pod_name-$container_name | ||
| assert "$output" = "volume" \ | ||
| "quadlet - kube oneshot: container should be attached to a volume of type volume" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tests LGTM. For future reference (not a blocker), you don't need so much duplication duplication in the test descriptions. A simple "volume .Type" would be enough. Likewise above in line 1230, below 1241.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what you meant here. The reason for the verbosity is to make the error line unique and explanatory. What do you suggest instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just "volume .Type" would be fine. On failure, both Expected and Actual are shown, so there's no need to include Expected in the description. Not a big deal.
| "quadlet - kube oneshot: container should be attached to the volume named $volume_name" | ||
|
|
||
| # Shutdown the service and remove the volume | ||
| service_cleanup $pod_service inactive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you need to repush, I would appreciate you adding
run_podman rmi $(pause_image)
to avoid nasty red noise in logs.
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-kube-oneshot-test
branch
from
970b1f3 to
6f7a42c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Ygal Blum <[email protected]>
ygalblum
force-pushed
the
quadlet-kube-oneshot-test
branch
from
6f7a42c to
6ba67ba
Compare
|
/lgtm thank you |
github-actions
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
No