Skip to content

DRA E2E: promote one test to conformance #133132

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

DRA E2E: promote one test to conformance #133132

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions test/conformance/testdata/conformance.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2843,6 +2843,16 @@
lifecycle of a container.
release: v1.19
file: test/e2e/common/node/expansion.go
- testname: 'Dynamic Resource Allocation: supports claim and class parameters'
codename: '[sig-node] [DRA] control plane supports claim and class parameters [Conformance]'
description: The Kubernetes API must support specifying parameters in a ResourceClaimTemplate
and DeviceClass. kube-controller-manager must create the ResourceClaim for a Pod
referencing the ResourceClaimTemplate. kube-scheduler must allocate a suitable
device from a ResourceSlice and copy the parameters into the allocation result.
kubelet must invoke a DRA driver such these parameters are active for the Pod
(not part of conformance).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems contradictory? How do we have a conformance test that self-discloses requirements of behavior that is not part of conformance?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this is just documenting some expectation of how DRA should behave that is not tested, we should drop it from the description ...

If this is WRT the actual test behavior, we probably need to pick another test.

The test code is pretty heavily abstracted, it's not immediately apparent to my late night brain if this test depends on installing a driver / kubelet invoking a driver?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc @yliaog

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the same test is used in two ways (withKubelet is false, and true), singleNodeTests := func(withKubelet bool)

for conformance test, withKubelet is false, hence the conformance test does not require kublet, the test checks if the pods are scheduled successfully, it does not check whether they are running or not.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think TODO is to drop this from the conformance test to avoid confusion, but non-blocking.

release: v1.34
file: test/e2e/dra/dra.go
- testname: LimitRange, resources
codename: '[sig-scheduling] LimitRange should create a LimitRange with defaults
and ensure pod has those defaults applied. [Conformance]'
Expand Down
Loading