-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 159
Add e2e/integration tests for image snapshot #929
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
Add e2e/integration tests for image snapshot #929
Conversation
/assign |
Hi @luohao. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
7bd75d6
to
a40772f
Compare
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-e2e |
/retest |
a40772f
to
b15acd6
Compare
/retest |
b15acd6
to
50045ff
Compare
/retest |
50045ff
to
ea2f074
Compare
/retest |
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-e2e |
Expect(err).To(BeNil(), "Could not get snapshot from cloud directly") | ||
Expect(snapshot.Name).To(Equal(snapshotName)) | ||
|
||
err = wait.Poll(10*time.Second, 3*time.Minute, func() (bool, error) { |
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.
I think you've seen disk image creation take up to 4 minutes? Maybe should set timeout to 5 min to decrease test flakiness.
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ readonly run_intree_plugin_tests=${RUN_INTREE_PLUGIN_TESTS:-false} | |||
readonly use_kubetest2=${USE_KUBETEST2:-true} | |||
readonly test_pd_labels=${TEST_PD_LABELS:-true} | |||
readonly migration_test=${MIGRATION_TEST:-false} | |||
readonly test_disk_image_snapshot=${TEST_DISK_IMAGE_SNAPSHOT:-false} | |||
readonly test_disk_image_snapshot=${TEST_DISK_IMAGE_SNAPSHOT:-true} |
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.
Can we use multiple snapshot class files with the test flag? If so, we should just set the CI to run both the conventional & disk image snapshots.
ea2f074
to
21f2dc6
Compare
/retest |
21f2dc6
to
e93645e
Compare
/retest |
f6ab3fb
to
598af14
Compare
/retest |
1 similar comment
/retest |
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-e2e |
/retest |
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-kubernetes-integration |
1 similar comment
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-kubernetes-integration |
d65c583
to
7d9dc0d
Compare
This patch fixed two issues in image creation and clone: - add forceCreate flag to avoid image creation failures when source disk is attached - fix the missing content source in CreateVolume response when restoring an image
7d9dc0d
to
8076b27
Compare
/retest |
8076b27
to
fc50ff8
Compare
/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-e2e |
Can you edit driver-config.go and configs/test-config-template.in so that the driver name includes the snapshot storage class, or some reasonable abbreviation? Then we can see what snapshot class was used in the tests as it appears in the [Driver: XXX] tag in the test output. |
@mattcary I updated the driver name by appending the snapshotclass name to it(when no snapshot class is specified, it appends The driver name( Can you take a look, please? Thanks! |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: luohao, mattcary 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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #924
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: