Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add part1 manual test case from v1.3.0 validated tickets. #1217
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add part1 manual test case from v1.3.0 validated tickets. #1217
Changes from 2 commits
30a29f6
b5f10d4
7a9c1c5
473953a
b150ccd
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we have this in automated test already?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I went through our existing backend integration test scenarios of:
I found the following test plan in
test_4_vm_snapshot.py
may covered in thetest_create_vm_snapshot_while_pvc_detached
tests/harvester_e2e_tests/integrations/test_4_vm_snapshot.py
Lines 457 to 487 in 790c494
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update the test plan, remove the lines that have been covered in the automation e2e test.
And replace to indicate which e2e test covered this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above, can you check if we have this in automated test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For Case 2:
I found the following test plan in
test_4_vm_snapshot.py
integration test may covered in the testtest_restore_from_vm_snapshot_while_pvc_detached_from_source
tests/harvester_e2e_tests/integrations/test_4_vm_snapshot.py
Lines 425 to 453 in 790c494
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update the test plan, remove the lines that have been covered in the automation e2e test.
And replace to indicate which e2e test covered this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Decrease an indent.
Current
Should be
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the check.
Decrease the indent to align the format.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the check.
Decrease the indent to align the format.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you check if this is covered in automated test already?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By checking our existing vm backup and snapshot integration test scenarios in:
I did not found a suitable automation test could both cover when vm already have the snapshot and backup on it.
Among these tests
test_4_vm_backup_restore.py
test_4_vm_snapshot.py
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@albin, do we have a test case with 2 pool created while testing guest cluster?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After checking and helped by Albin, currently in the backend e2e test in
test_9_rancher_integration.py
We provide creating 3 nodes in the same roles
ALL
and in the same pool.Thus it seems the manual test is somehow differ with the backend e2e Rancher integration test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To check a particular version of chart, removing the default and installing from Apps is fine but in general, this should not be practiced. As the bundled chart might get rolled back to the manifest shipped with guest cluster. So, I think adding this as generalized test case is not required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the suggestion.
That's true, the tester should confirm the cloud provider default provided in the RKE2 guest cluster at least to have
0.2.3
to include this changes.These steps here are not necessary since these steps are just for the time when the bundled chart is not ready during the issue verification stage.
We can remove these lines and the related static screenshot.
Then add the check step to ensure the desired cloud provider version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Install Harvester cloud provider 0.2.3 from
Apps & marketplace
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the check.
Update to the correct term in this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is already covered in automation test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After checking and confirmed with team, our existing backend e2e test of rancher integration in
test_9_rancher_integration.py
:There we provide the ability to create 3 nodes guest cluster
tests/harvester_e2e_tests/integrations/test_9_rancher_integration.py
Line 152 in 3d21068
In actual testing helped by Albin, the 3 nodes downstream cluster are created in the same pool and all set to the
![image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/29251855/324347360-79237452-2865-446f-81d3-9d4ba33cb2b4.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3Mzk1Mzg3MjAsIm5iZiI6MTczOTUzODQyMCwicGF0aCI6Ii8yOTI1MTg1NS8zMjQzNDczNjAtNzkyMzc0NTItMjg2NS00NDZmLTgxZDMtOWQ0YmEzM2NiMmI0LnBuZz9YLUFtei1BbGdvcml0aG09QVdTNC1ITUFDLVNIQTI1NiZYLUFtei1DcmVkZW50aWFsPUFLSUFWQ09EWUxTQTUzUFFLNFpBJTJGMjAyNTAyMTQlMkZ1cy1lYXN0LTElMkZzMyUyRmF3czRfcmVxdWVzdCZYLUFtei1EYXRlPTIwMjUwMjE0VDEzMDcwMFomWC1BbXotRXhwaXJlcz0zMDAmWC1BbXotU2lnbmF0dXJlPTQzOGM2YmZiZDE3MzMxNjY5NzQ4NTFmOTRmMDIyNWY5MzM1ODliNGFmZWEwZjYzMmFlZWZlMDgwY2JlOGY4YTgmWC1BbXotU2lnbmVkSGVhZGVycz1ob3N0In0.snvwEYKBO_5Qaw9gUU9tMhukCnwxz8WgK6_jViF_Bnw)
ALL
role.Thus we can assume this manual test plan to have different roles in different pools did not covered by e2e test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is being taken care in upgrade automation test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my understating, our existing upgrade backend e2e test will shutdown VM before starting upgrade.
This manual test have a little bit difference with e2e test since in this test we shudown VM by accessing into the operating system while the e2e test shutdown VM from the virtual machine related API call.
Thus I am thinking whether we can keep this test plan since there operations are somehow different.