test (register) :Add ginkgo tests csi register #5426
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Yuvraj Kolkar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yuvraj Kolkar <[email protected]>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Summary of ChangesHello @yuvraj-kolkar17, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the testing infrastructure for the CSI component by introducing new Ginkgo test suites for the registration mechanism and by thoroughly expanding existing tests for configuration updates. The changes aim to improve the reliability and maintainability of the CSI code by ensuring that component registration behaves as expected under various conditions and that configuration file modifications are robust and accurate. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
Hi @yuvraj-kolkar17. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a fluid-cloudnative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions 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/test-infra repository. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces comprehensive Ginkgo tests for the CSI registration logic in register.go and refactors the tests for updatedbconf.go to use Ginkgo as well. The new tests are well-structured and cover a wide range of scenarios, significantly improving test coverage and reliability.
My review focuses on the new test logic. I've identified a couple of instances in updatedbconf_test.go where the tests assert behavior that, while matching the current implementation, seems incorrect. Specifically, they relate to handling of empty strings which results in outputs with extra spaces or newlines. I've suggested changes to the tests to assert the desired behavior, which will help in fixing the underlying implementation bugs. The tests for register.go are excellent.
| It("should handle empty existing values", func() { | ||
| line := `PRUNEFS=""` | ||
| newValues := []string{"foo", "bar"} | ||
|
|
||
| result, changed := updateLine(line, configKeyPruneFs, newValues) | ||
|
|
||
| Expect(changed).To(BeTrue()) | ||
| Expect(result).To(Equal(`PRUNEFS=" foo bar"`)) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test case seems to be asserting an incorrect behavior. When the existing value is an empty string (PRUNEFS=""), the result PRUNEFS=" foo bar" contains an undesirable leading space inside the quotes. This is likely due to how updateLine handles splitting an empty string. The expected result should probably be PRUNEFS="foo bar". I recommend adjusting this test to assert the correct behavior, which will likely require a fix in the updateLine function itself.
| It("should handle empty existing values", func() { | |
| line := `PRUNEFS=""` | |
| newValues := []string{"foo", "bar"} | |
| result, changed := updateLine(line, configKeyPruneFs, newValues) | |
| Expect(changed).To(BeTrue()) | |
| Expect(result).To(Equal(`PRUNEFS=" foo bar"`)) | |
| }) | |
| It("should handle empty existing values", func() { | |
| line := `PRUNEFS=""` | |
| newValues := []string{"foo", "bar"} | |
| result, changed := updateLine(line, configKeyPruneFs, newValues) | |
| Expect(changed).To(BeTrue()) | |
| Expect(result).To(Equal(`PRUNEFS="foo bar"`)) | |
| }) |
| It("should handle empty content", func() { | ||
| content := "" | ||
| expected := ` | ||
| PRUNEFS="fuse.alluxio-fuse fuse.jindofs-fuse JuiceFS fuse.goosefs-fuse" | ||
| PRUNEPATHS="/runtime-mnt"` | ||
|
|
||
| result, err := updateConfig(content, newFs, newPaths) | ||
| Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) | ||
| Expect(result).To(Equal(expected)) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test case asserts that for an empty input string, the output has a leading newline. This is due to strings.Split("", "\n") producing []string{""}. While the test correctly reflects the current implementation's behavior, this behavior is likely undesirable. An empty input should probably result in an output without a leading newline. I suggest adjusting the test to expect the correct behavior, which will necessitate a fix in updateConfig to handle empty input content more gracefully.
It("should handle empty content", func() {
content := ""
expected := `PRUNEFS="fuse.alluxio-fuse fuse.jindofs-fuse JuiceFS fuse.goosefs-fuse"
PRUNEPATHS="/runtime-mnt"`
result, err := updateConfig(content, newFs, newPaths)
Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
Expect(result).To(Equal(expected))
})
|
|
closing and continue in #5428 |
1 participant
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR does
This PR adds comprehensive Ginkgo test suites for the CSI register.go to test coverage and code reliability.
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
Ⅲ. List the added test cases (unit test/integration test) if any, please explain if no tests are needed.
Added Ginkgo tests for
pkg/csi/register.goⅣ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews