conformance: fixes for invalid reference policy test #1170
Conversation
- fixes path prefix match YAML - removes check for HTTPRoute to be Accepted pending kubernetes-sigs#1112 Signed-off-by: Steve Kriss <krisss@vmware.com>
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/bug
👷 Deploy request for kubernetes-sigs-gateway-api pending review.Visit the deploys page to approve it
|
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
Hi @skriss. 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. |
| @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ var HTTPRouteInvalidReferencePolicy = suite.ConformanceTest{ | |||
| // kubernetes.GatewayStatusMustHaveListeners(t, s.Client, gwNN, listeners, 60) | |||
| // }) | |||
|
|
|||
| gwAddr := kubernetes.GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady(t, s.Client, s.ControllerName, gwNN, routeNN) | |||
| gwAddr := kubernetes.GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady(t, s.Client, s.ControllerName, gwNN) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dropped the check for the route to be Accepted here pending the TODO on L49-51 to be resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you move the TODO from L49 down to here? I actually hadn't looked at the impl of GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady, didn't realize it was actually checking the Accepted condition on routes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 moved and reworded slightly
| @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ var HTTPRouteInvalidReferencePolicy = suite.ConformanceTest{ | |||
| // kubernetes.GatewayStatusMustHaveListeners(t, s.Client, gwNN, listeners, 60) | |||
| // }) | |||
|
|
|||
| gwAddr := kubernetes.GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady(t, s.Client, s.ControllerName, gwNN, routeNN) | |||
| gwAddr := kubernetes.GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady(t, s.Client, s.ControllerName, gwNN) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you move the TODO from L49 down to here? I actually hadn't looked at the impl of GatewayAndHTTPRoutesMustBeReady, didn't realize it was actually checking the Accepted condition on routes.
No worries, it looked right and we all missed it! I had been wondering why this test didn't start failing for us when the 503 -> 404 change was made, but this explains it now 😄 |
Signed-off-by: Steve Kriss <krisss@vmware.com>
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/S
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
ok-to-test
|
Thanks! /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mikemorris, robscott, skriss 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
#1167 commented out a call to
t.Skip(...), however thatt.Skip(...)call had been written in a misleading way; it was skipping the rest of the test, not just the function passed to t.Skip(...) as an arg. So after commenting it out, the rest of the test now executes and uncovers a couple small issues with the test:Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: