Skip to content

Conversation

@joshjms
Copy link
Member

@joshjms joshjms commented Oct 22, 2025

Signed-off-by: joshjms <joshjms1607@gmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: joshjms
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign serathius for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found 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

@joshjms joshjms marked this pull request as draft October 22, 2025 12:05
@joshjms joshjms marked this pull request as ready for review October 22, 2025 12:05
@joshjms
Copy link
Member Author

joshjms commented Oct 22, 2025

I'll make it not draft to test the CI :)

@joshjms
Copy link
Member Author

joshjms commented Oct 22, 2025

/hold

@joshjms
Copy link
Member Author

joshjms commented Oct 22, 2025

On closer inspection the watch tests in e2e is quite different in purpose than the one in integration :) Should I keep them separated?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 22, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.20%. Comparing base (487e5b6) to head (c74838c).
⚠️ Report is 66 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

see 24 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #20837      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.14%   69.20%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         422      422              
  Lines       34824    34824              
==========================================
+ Hits        24079    24100      +21     
+ Misses       9342     9326      -16     
+ Partials     1403     1398       -5     

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 487e5b6...c74838c. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

@joshjms: 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-etcd-verify c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-verify
pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-arm64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-arm64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-arm64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-amd64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-amd64
pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-amd64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-amd64
pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-amd64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-amd64
pull-etcd-e2e-amd64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-e2e-amd64
pull-etcd-e2e-arm64 c74838c link true /test pull-etcd-e2e-arm64

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.

@yagikota
Copy link
Contributor

@joshjms

Can you write PR description in more detail? You can refer to my PR for reference.

Copy link
Contributor

@yagikota yagikota left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@joshjms

The tests/e2e/watch_test.go contains some tests:
First, you need to determine which tests should be migrated to common and which should remain as they are.


  • TestWatchDelayForPeriodicProgressNotification
  • TestWatchDelayForManualProgressNotification
  • TestWatchDelayForEvent

To understand these tests, you need to read these references:

In my opinion, these tests should not be migrated to common.
As described in the discussion, they validate watch behavior over a single persistent gRPC(HTTP/2) connection. Running them under tests/common would switch the e2e runner to etcdctl-based clients, where each call is executed in a separate process/connection. That masks the very class of bugs we want to catch (e.g., multiple requests over one connection).


  • TestDeleteEventDrop_Issue18089

See #18201 for the backgroud of this test.

It's better to migrate this test to tests/e2e/reproduce_18089_test.go to align with other reproduction purpose tests.


  • TestStartWatcherFromCompactedRevision

See #18274 for the background.

It can probably be migrated to tests/common.


  • TestResumeCompactionOnTombstone

See https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/191884 for the background.

I'm not sure why this test exists in tests/e2e/watch_test.go. tests/e2e/resume_compaction_tombstone_test.go or something would be better.
Since failpoint injection is used in this test, it's better to keep it in tests/e2e/.


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants