OCPBUGS-87079: Add polling and longer waits in the EgressFirewall tests to avoid flakiness#31376
OCPBUGS-87079: Add polling and longer waits in the EgressFirewall tests to avoid flakiness#31376arkadeepsen wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
Pipeline controller notification For optional jobs, comment This repository is configured in: automatic mode |
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-reference
|
@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-87079, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository YAML (base), Central YAML (inherited) Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
WalkthroughThis PR revises egress firewall test polling and command timeouts, and corrects the IPv6 wildcard fixture’s default deny rule and embedded test data. ChangesEgress firewall test updates
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 14 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (14 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-bug
|
@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-87079, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arkadeepsen The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-87079, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@test/extended/networking/egress_firewall.go`:
- Around line 152-159: The poll logic in the egress firewall test is inverted:
the callback in `wait.PollUntilContextTimeout` should report success when
`oc.Run("exec").Args(... "ping" ...)` starts failing, so the final assertion
should expect a nil result instead of an error. Update the polling condition in
the ping check to return true when the ping command errors, and change the
`expectError` assertion in `TestEgressFirewall` to assert the poll completes
successfully once the block is enforced.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Central YAML (inherited)
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: e3cefe46-f7f5-4639-adfc-85fa8c3c36e9
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
test/extended/networking/egress_firewall.gotest/extended/testdata/egress-firewall/ovnk-egressfirewall-wildcard-test.yaml
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
ready-for-human-review
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-main-nightly-5.0-e2e-metal-ipi-ovn-dualstack 5 |
|
@arkadeepsen: trigger 4 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/5dd8fed0-7bc2-11f1-80ca-668e7a7852e2-0 |
|
Scheduling required tests: |
|
/retest |
…kiness Signed-off-by: arkadeepsen <arsen@redhat.com>
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-main-nightly-5.0-e2e-metal-ipi-ovn-dualstack 5 |
|
@arkadeepsen: trigger 4 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/1a5018c0-7c2f-11f1-9b1b-968f6e120138-0 |
|
Scheduling required tests: |
|
/retest/test e2e-aws-ovn-microshift |
|
/test e2e-aws-ovn-fips |
1 similar comment
|
/test e2e-aws-ovn-fips |
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-main-nightly-5.0-e2e-metal-ipi-ovn-dualstack 5 |
|
@arkadeepsen: trigger 4 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/7f521ff0-7c81-11f1-83c8-1d2ff238c663-0 |
|
/retest-required |
|
@arkadeepsen: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
2 participants
This PR adds polling and longer waits in the EgressFirewall tests to avoid flakiness. These tests have a long history of flaking. To avoid the flakiness, the additional polling and waits are introduced so that the tests don't fail immediately on the first incorrect EgressFirewall rule enforcement.
Summary by CodeRabbit
::/0selector is correctly placed and covered.