-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 361
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
e2e: add e2e test for MergeGateways feature #2665
Conversation
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2665 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 66.51% 64.60% -1.92%
==========================================
Files 161 122 -39
Lines 22673 21147 -1526
==========================================
- Hits 15080 13661 -1419
+ Misses 6720 6638 -82
+ Partials 873 848 -25 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Maybe also add a test-case where there is some conflict between the gateways?
good point |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good, I am happy to see it!
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
there is an issue while implementing this test, and it seems related to #2668 |
#2672 is merged, plz go ahead, thanks. |
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
/retest all the unstable conformance tests will be investigated via #2269 |
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM thanks !
/retest |
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Yes. But this test seems a little unstable. |
namespace: gateway-conformance-infra | ||
spec: | ||
gatewayClassName: merge-gateways | ||
listeners: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is the instability because you are using the same listener name
and port
b/w merged-gateway-4
& merged-gateway-3
cc @cnvergence
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the merged-gateway-4
is deliberately collide with merged-gateway-3
. the test case for merged-gateway-4
is to make sure the right status will be surfaced if the merge gateway is conflict with another.
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
… able to run Signed-off-by: shawnh2 <[email protected]>
hi @arkodg, I think this PR is good to go. If we running into any flakiness caused by this e2e test case, we can submit an issue to report anytime :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM thanks !
/retest |
3 similar comments
/retest |
/retest |
/retest |
raise #3262 to track flaky e2e test: EnvoyShutdown |
/retest |
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #2029