e2e tests: use Should(Exit()) and ExitWithError() #10932
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
e2e_exit_checks
branch
from
f8eae6e to
864d809
Compare
|
Much more convoluted than I had hoped. I'll continue tomorrow. |
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
e2e_exit_checks
branch
from
864d809 to
305be76
Compare
|
Failures are all in the same tests, and all of the form: I think this is uncovering genuine longstanding bugs in the test suite. |
|
And, followup: we got a flake. The new error message is |
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
e2e_exit_checks
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5836d9e to
4c38202
Compare
e2e test failures are rife with messages like:
Expected 1 to equal 0
These make me cry. They're anti-helpful, requiring the reader
to dive into the source code to figure out what those numbers
mean.
Solution: Go tests have a '.Should(Exit(NNN))' mechanism. I
don't know if it spits out a better diagnostic (I have no way
to run e2e tests on my laptop), but I have to fantasize that
it will, and given the state of our flakes I assume that at
least one test will fail and give me the opportunity to see
what the error message looks like.
THIS IS NOT REVIEWABLE CODE. There is no way for a human
to review it. Don't bother. Maybe look at a few random
ones for sanity. If you want to really review, here is
a reproducer of what I did:
cd test/e2e
! positive assertions. The second is the same as the first,
! with the addition of (unnecessary) parentheses because
! some invocations were written that way. The third is BeZero().
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit(0))/' *_test.go
! Same as above, but handles three non-numeric exit codes
! in run_exit_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\S+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
! negative assertions. Difference is the spelling of 'To(Not)',
! 'ToNot', and 'NotTo'. I assume those are all the same.
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Not\(Equal\((0)\)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.NotTo\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
! negative, old use of BeZero()
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
Run those on a clean copy of main branch (at the same branch
point as my PR, of course), then diff against a checked-out
copy of my PR. There should be no differences. Then all you
have to review is that my replacements above are sane.
UPDATE: nope, that's not enough, you also need to add gomega/gexec
to the files that don't have it:
perl -pi -e '$_ .= "$1/gexec\"\n" if m!^(.*/onsi/gomega)"!' $(grep -L gomega/gexec $(git log -1 --stat | awk '$1 ~ /test\/e2e\// { print $1}'))
UPDATE 2: hand-edit run_volume_test.go
UPDATE 3: sigh, add WaitWithDefaultTimeout() to a couple of places
UPDATE 4: skip a test due to bug containers#10935 (race condition)
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
edsantiago
force-pushed
the
e2e_exit_checks
branch
from
4c38202 to
547fff2
Compare
vrothberg
reviewed
Jul 15, 2021
|
/lgtm |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, rhatdan 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 |
|
/hold cancel |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
edsantiago
added a commit
to edsantiago/libpod
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2021
Followup to containers#10932: add a validation check to prevent introduction of new 'Expect(foo.ExitCode()).To(...)' patterns. If such use is absolutely necessary -- there is one such instance in the code already -- require that the assertion include a description. Also: clean up instances that were introduced since the merging of containers#10932. Also: fix one remaining instance in run_exit_test.go: it had a FIXME comment mentioning a race condition, but unfortunately there was no issue or bug ID, hence no way to know if the race is fixed or not. We will assume it is. Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
This was referenced Jul 20, 2021
github-actions
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
e2e test failures are rife with messages like:
Expected 1 to equal 0
These make me cry. They're anti-helpful, requiring the reader
to dive into the source code to figure out what those numbers
mean.
Solution: Go tests have a '.Should(Exit(NNN))' mechanism. I
don't know if it spits out a better diagnostic (I have no way
to run e2e tests on my laptop), but I have to fantasize that
it will, and given the state of our flakes I assume that at
least one test will fail and give me the opportunity to see
what the error message looks like.
THIS IS NOT REVIEWABLE CODE. There is no way for a human
to review it. Don't bother. Maybe look at a few random
ones for sanity. If you want to really review, here is
a reproducer of what I did:
cd test/e2e
! positive assertions. The second is the same as the first,
! with the addition of (unnecessary) parentheses because
! some invocations were written that way.
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).To(Equal((\d+)))/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).To((Equal((\d+))))/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
! Same as above, but handles three non-numeric exit codes
! in run_exit_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).To(Equal((\S+)))/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
! negative assertions. Difference is the spelling of 'To(Not)',
! 'ToNot', and 'NotTo'. I assume those are all the same.
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).To(Not(Equal((0))))/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).ToNot(Equal((0)))/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect((\S+).ExitCode()).NotTo(Equal((0)))/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
Run those on a clean copy of main branch (at the same branch
point as my PR, of course), then diff against a checked-out
copy of my PR. There should be no differences. Then all you
have to review is that my replacements above are sane.
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago [email protected]