RFC: Introduce PodmanTestIntegration.PodmanCleanly by mtrmac · Pull Request #24977 · containers/podman

mtrmac · 2025-01-08T19:38:57Z

This significantly simplifies the ceromony of running a Podman command in integration tests, from

  session := p.Podman([]string{"stop", id})
  session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout()
  Expect(session).Should(ExitCleanly())

to

  p.PodmanCleanly("stop", id)

There are >4650 instances of ExitCleanly() in the tests, and many could be migrated; this does not do that.

@containers/podman-maintainers RFC. While writing integration tests, I find the ever-present repetitive boilerplate hard to read/maintain, and generally off-putting; OTOH the PodmanCleanly call does not show explicitly that any testing is happening. I’m also, short-term, not able to migrate everything, so introducing this would make tests less consistent for now.

It’s also very possible there’s already a much better way to do things, and I just don’t know.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

mtrmac · 2025-01-08T19:40:44Z

I’m also 100% open to suggestions of a better name of the helper.

rhatdan · 2025-01-08T20:47:25Z

I think PodmanExitCleanly() would be a better name.
But this is a good idea.
LGTM

giuseppe

LGTM, we can incrementally move new tests to the new function.

I also think PodmanExitCleanly is a bit more descriptive

Luap99

I also prefer PodmanExitCleanly as name. Otherwise I think this is a good idea and I don't see a strict need to manually convert all callers right now.
We can start using it for new code only.

Luap99 · 2025-01-09T10:15:44Z

test/e2e/common_test.go

+func (p *PodmanTestIntegration) PodmanCleanly(args ...string) *PodmanSessionIntegration {
+	session := p.Podman(args)
+	session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout()
+	Expect(session).Should(ExitCleanly())


This should use ExpectWithOffset(1,...), the last line in the stack trace in the log will otherwise all point to this line here which is pretty pointless as I like to get linked to the actual command that failed.

Trying GinkgoHelper — that should also affect the failures in WaitWithDefaultTimeout.

Ah yes that seems much better than having to deal with correct offset numbers.

mheon · 2025-01-09T14:15:50Z

I like it. LGTM once the comment from @Luap99 is addressed.
I would like to see an existing file migrated (one of the smaller ones) to see what this looks like in practice, but see no need to do this in this PR.

baude · 2025-01-09T15:05:27Z

what do people think about the inverse as well? PodmanExitFailure which takes a command and an exit code?

baude · 2025-01-09T15:07:09Z

I like it. LGTM once the comment from @Luap99 is addressed. I would like to see an existing file migrated (one of the smaller ones) to see what this looks like in practice, but see no need to do this in this PR.

If @mtrmac repushes, I can rebase and use in the artifact e2e tests happily.

Luap99 · 2025-01-09T15:22:46Z

what do people think about the inverse as well? PodmanExitFailure which takes a command and an exit code?

It would need to take an error message as well (exit code checks are useless without proper error message checks) and then at that point the lines gets so long that it needs to be split on multiple lines anyway so then it is no longer that much shorter. Although I guess getting rid of the WaitWithDefaultTimeout() timeout calls would help a fair bit still

mtrmac · 2025-01-09T17:41:57Z

Updated:

Renamed to PodmanExitCleanly
Updated attach_test.go to show what this looks like (notably how the PodmanExitCleanly calls look a bit different from raw Podman calls when we expect failure or want some extra processing).
Marked the new utility as a helper.

It seems to me that the command tests might be possible to express in some more concise way with a builder-like API:

/* session = */ p.Podman("system", "reset", "-f") // default: run command, default timeout, expect success

/* session = */ p.Command("skopeo", "--version") // other command, default timeout, expect success

/* session = */ p.PodmanWithOptions("other", "situations").Options(
    WithTimeout(other),
    ExpectError(code, string),
    DoNotExecute(), // for truly custom situations
    NoEvents(), // instead of the PodmanBase / Podman split
    …
)

but, also, we are not in the business of inventing a new integration test DSL. There’s a balance to be struck; the sweet spot is probably being a bit more expressive / capable than just PodmanExitCleanly (for non-Podman commands and common error situations?), but not much more expressive, adding dozens of new helpers.

If nothing else, I think that using ...string instead of having []string{} on every call site is an obvious improvement that could happen in more situations.

Anyway, this is not something I can work on right now. I just wanted to avoid the very obvious boilerplate when writing a few hundred lines of new tests.

This significantly simplifies the ceromony of running a Podman command in integration tests, from > session := p.Podman([]string{"stop", id}) > session.WaitWithDefaultTimeout() > Expect(session).Should(ExitCleanly()) to > p.PodmanExitCleanly("stop", id) There are >4650 instances of ExitCleanly() in the tests, and many could be migrated; this does not do that. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>

just as a demonstration. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>

Luap99

LGTM

openshift-ci · 2025-01-10T10:41:12Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, Luap99, mtrmac

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [Luap99,giuseppe,mtrmac]

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

rhatdan · 2025-01-10T15:10:58Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci bot added release-note-none approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jan 8, 2025

giuseppe approved these changes Jan 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

Luap99 reviewed Jan 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

mtrmac force-pushed the exitcleanly branch from 3653d24 to ea08ff0 Compare January 9, 2025 17:31

mtrmac force-pushed the exitcleanly branch from ea08ff0 to bf520e6 Compare January 9, 2025 17:47

mtrmac added 2 commits January 9, 2025 18:47

Use PodmanExitCleanly in attach_test.go

de1aa44

just as a demonstration. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>

mtrmac force-pushed the exitcleanly branch from bf520e6 to de1aa44 Compare January 9, 2025 17:47

Luap99 approved these changes Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned rhatdan Jan 10, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 10, 2025

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 1194557 into containers:main Jan 10, 2025

mtrmac deleted the exitcleanly branch January 10, 2025 20:24

mtrmac mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2025

Refactor Podman E2E helpers to allow passing/adding more options to the low-level executor #25097

Merged

stale-locking-app bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Apr 11, 2025

stale-locking-app bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 11, 2025

Conversation

mtrmac commented Jan 8, 2025

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Uh oh!

mtrmac commented Jan 8, 2025

Uh oh!

rhatdan commented Jan 8, 2025

Uh oh!

giuseppe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Luap99 Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mtrmac Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Luap99 Jan 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mheon commented Jan 9, 2025

Uh oh!

baude commented Jan 9, 2025

Uh oh!

baude commented Jan 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Luap99 commented Jan 9, 2025

Uh oh!

mtrmac commented Jan 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Uh oh!

rhatdan commented Jan 10, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants