[e2e] Use different K8s version with each ClusterctlUpgrade test

[sedefsavas]

In ClusterctlUpgrade e2e test, independent of the clusterctl version specified with INIT_WITH_BINARY, we can only specify a single K8s version (INIT_WITH_KUBERNETES_VERSION) for the cluster.

More specifically, providers might call ClusterctlUpgrade to test both v1alpha3-->v1beta1 test and v1alpha4-->v1beta1 upgrade, but both calls use the same K8s version specified with INIT_WITH_KUBERNETES_VERSION.

One way to use a different version for each upgrade test, instead of parsing a pre-defined variable, we can add a field for the K8s version in ClusterctlUpgradeSpecInput similar to

cluster-api/test/e2e/clusterctl_upgrade.go

Line 61 in aafa086

InitWithBinary string

[sedefsavas]

/kind feature

[sbueringer]

+1

[sbueringer]

/area testing

[fabriziopandini]

/milestone v1.2
/help
It will be great to add few more detail so this qualifies as a good first issue

[k8s-ci-robot]

@fabriziopandini:
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor.

Guidelines

Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions:

• Why are we solving this issue?
• To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points?
• Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry?
• How can the assignee reach out to you for help?

For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see here and ensure that they are met.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-help command.

In response to this:

/milestone v1.2
/help
It will be great to add few more detail so this qualifies as a good first issue

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[sbueringer]

Some details:

The clusterctl upgrade test currently takes the following configuration as input parameter:

cluster-api/test/e2e/clusterctl_upgrade.go

Lines 56 to 73 in 3d2876c

	type ClusterctlUpgradeSpecInput struct {
	E2EConfig *clusterctl.E2EConfig
	ClusterctlConfigPath string
	BootstrapClusterProxy framework.ClusterProxy
	ArtifactFolder string
	// InitWithBinary can be used to override the INIT_WITH_BINARY e2e config variable with the URL of the clusterctl binary of the old version of Cluster API. The spec will interpolate the
	// strings `{OS}` and `{ARCH}` to `runtime.GOOS` and `runtime.GOARCH` respectively, e.g. https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/releases/download/v0.3.23/clusterctl-{OS}-{ARCH}
	InitWithBinary string
	// InitWithProvidersContract can be used to override the INIT_WITH_PROVIDERS_CONTRACT e2e config variable with a specific
	// provider contract to use to initialise the secondary management cluster, e.g. `v1alpha3`
	InitWithProvidersContract string
	SkipCleanup bool
	PreInit func(managementClusterProxy framework.ClusterProxy)
	PreUpgrade func(managementClusterProxy framework.ClusterProxy)
	PostUpgrade func(managementClusterProxy framework.ClusterProxy)
	MgmtFlavor string
	WorkloadFlavor string
	}

Additional configuration can be set via environment variables.

Some configuration can be set both via environment variables and the ClusterctlUpgradeSpecInput struct.

The Kubernetes version we use for the clusterctl init at the beginning of the test can currently only be set via the INIT_WITH_KUBERNETES_VERSION environment variable. Goal of this issue is to add a field to the ClusterctlUpgradeSpecInput so the init Kubernetes version can be also set via the struct.

Essentially, we want an InitWithKubernetesVersion field which works the same way as InitWithBinary. If InitWithKubernetesVersion is set, this version should be used. Otherwise we want to fallback to the environment variable.

Feel free to ask here or in Slack if there are any questions :)

[fabriziopandini]

/good-first-issue
given that the ask is very similar to what already implemented for InitWithBinary

[k8s-ci-robot]

@fabriziopandini:
This request has been marked as suitable for new contributors.

Guidelines

Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions:

• Why are we solving this issue?
• To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points?
• Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry?
• How can the assignee reach out to you for help?

For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see here and ensure that they are met.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-good-first-issue command.

In response to this:

/good-first-issue
given that the ask is very similar to what already implemented for InitWithBinary

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[arvryna]

/assign

[SubhasmitaSw]

/assign

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[sbueringer]

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle active

[fabriziopandini]

/triage accepted