Skip to content

e2e: node: cpumanager: replace the test suite #133463

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

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ffromani
Copy link
Contributor

@ffromani ffromani commented Aug 11, 2025

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Replace the old cpumanager tests with the new suites rewritten and tested through the full 1.34 cycle.
The new testsuite is a superset of the old suite, so we gain coverage.

Which issue(s) this PR is related to:

#129884

Special notes for your reviewer:

This PR depends on and requires #133462

Previous work

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Is not ideal to heve utilities source file or packages,
because these tend to be unfocused and attract unstructured
code, easily leading to a kitchesink approach.
So, let's start cleaning up by splitting the utilities
we have to deal with kubelet config in its own source file,
lacking bandwidth now for deeper refactorings.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
A lot ofe2e_node  tests need to re-learn machine HW
properties to check the correctness of the behavior.
Over time, we start using these utilities among different
test groups (e.g. memory manager tests use cpu manager tests
utilites). So let's de-entangle this state by moving
the shared utilities in a separate util file.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
Push more utilities from cpu manager tests to util.go.
This time there is not a clear (or big enough)
them for this set of shared code blocks.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
Since is now all about criprozy, rename utils_linux.go
to better express the purpose.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
We're nearing the planned replacement of old cpumanager
tests with new ones, so move the remaining utilities
which we will keep using with the new codebase.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
The topology manager tests wants to run a subset of cpumanager tests
while checking numa alignment. We should eventually rewrite
these bits to reuse the new and cleaner rewritten cpu manager tests.
For the time being, we move the shared bits in the topology manager
tests, so we are now enabled to remove the remaining obsolete
cpu manager tests with the rewritten ones.

Trivial code movement, no intended behavioral changes.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
superseded by code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
superseded by code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
superseded by code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
superseded by code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
superseded by code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
keep only the test stub, as all the code was already
removed by PR in the series because superseded by
code in cpumanager_test.go,
which will be moved in cpu_manager_test.go at the
end of this series.
Split to make the review easier.

Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
This final change in the series completes the transition
to the new test suite

Fixes: kubernetes#129884
Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.34 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.34.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Mon Aug 11 10:25:10 UTC 2025.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Aug 11, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. label Aug 11, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ffromani

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. labels Aug 11, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. label Aug 11, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@ffromani: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-typecheck 19deaa8 link true /test pull-kubernetes-typecheck
pull-kubernetes-linter-hints 19deaa8 link false /test pull-kubernetes-linter-hints
pull-kubernetes-verify 19deaa8 link true /test pull-kubernetes-verify

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@matthyx
Copy link
Contributor

matthyx commented Aug 12, 2025

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 12, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: dfc32aaacc43c98740417a1e3ab5ce6614fac240

@ffromani
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold

Sorry, I failed to point out clearly this PR depends on #133462, fixing now

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/test cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants