PoC for Kubernetes provisioning support (via OLM) #206

fabiobrz · 2024-11-04T10:59:15Z

Description

Adding a target cloud environment concept to address both Kubernetes and OpenShift provisoning
Adding a Kubernetes client module, inspired by XTF OpenShift client implementation, to support K8s provisioning
Refactoring existing classes to cover both K8s and OpenShift cases
Adjusting the integration tests accordingly, and adding a GitHub workflow to run K8s e2e tests

Resolves #133

Additional issues which are solved by this PR:

Since the changes are broadly impacting the codebase, some issues have been fixed along the ways, ideally in separated commits:

Type of change

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change
Chore (non-breaking change which doesn't affect codebase;
test, version modification, documentation, etc.)

Checklist

Code contributed by me aligns with current project license: Apache 2.0
Pull Request contains a description of the changes
Pull Request does not include fixes for multiple issues/topics
Code is self-descriptive and/or documented
I have implemented unit tests to cover my changes
I tested my code in OpenShift

tommaso-borgato · 2024-11-13T11:28:45Z

...org/jboss/intersmash/testsuite/provision/k8s/HyperfoilKubernetesOperatorProvisionerTest.java

+				new HyperfoilOperatorApplication() {
+					@Override
+					public Hyperfoil getHyperfoil() {
+						Hyperfoil hyperfoil = new HyperfoilBuilder(


this could return directly without using a local variable as in HyperfoilOpenShiftOperatorProvisionerTest

tommaso-borgato · 2024-11-13T11:43:36Z

...org/jboss/intersmash/testsuite/provision/k8s/HyperfoilKubernetesOperatorProvisionerTest.java

+					}
+
+					@Override
+					public TargetType getTarget() {


couldn't this be deduced from execution context? I am assuming we run against K8 OR OCP, not the two at the same time in the same test run

Intersmash uses ProvisionerFactory instances to dynamically select the relevant provisioner for an Application, i.e. the Application type drives the decision, and this is the logic that we want to build upon.

That being said I changed the implementation in the last push so that there is no longer need for the implementing Application instance to set an enum value, but just to additionally implement either OpenShiftApplication or KubernetesApplication

IIUC what you are relating to, is the ability for a test suite that uses Intersmash to execute a set of tests just against K8s or OpenShift in one single run. This is something that must be implemented in the domain of the client test suite, and not by Intersmash. We actually do something similar in the Intersmash testsuite, where we use the OpenShiftTest or KubernetesTest categories to select which tests should be run.

tommaso-borgato · 2024-11-13T11:44:26Z

...org/jboss/intersmash/testsuite/provision/k8s/HyperfoilKubernetesOperatorProvisionerTest.java

+
+@TestMethodOrder(MethodOrderer.OrderAnnotation.class)
+@KubernetesTest
+public class HyperfoilKubernetesOperatorProvisionerTest implements NamespaceCreationCapable {


couldn't we use a single interface and deduce if K8 OR OCP from some context? I am assuming we run against K8 OR OCP, not the two at the same time in the same test run

Do you mean for Project vs. Namespace creation?
Tests are meant to be different, depending on whether they would target Kubernetes or OpenShift, and such detail (i.e. whether to create a Namespace or a Project), is one of the details that should be set explicitly to decouple the provisioning functionality from the execution context.
The same applies if you're relating to K8s vs. OpenShift tests. In fact, it is very likely that different resources or processes would be verified, depending on the target platform.
Of course there could also be the chance that K8s or OpenShift scenarios and tests could be similar, but this should not break the original requirement to be able and deploy/tests on both the platforms.

IIUC what you are relating to, is the ability for a test suite that uses Intersmash to execute a set of tests just against K8s or OpenShift in one single run. This is something that must be implemented in the domain of the client test suite, and not by Intersmash. We actually do something similar in the Intersmash testsuite, where we use the OpenShiftTest or KubernetesTest categories to select which tests should be run.

fabiobrz · 2024-11-13T12:04:18Z

/test

…nShift/Kubernetes JUnit5 extension behavior

fabiobrz · 2024-11-20T17:45:13Z

Thanks for the initial review comments, @tommaso-borgato
Hopefully I've answered your questions.

Regarding the CI checks, we are now green on Kubernetes, as you can see from the CI checks, but I am still fixing the OpenShift ones.
Feel free to add any additional comment.

fabiobrz · 2024-11-21T17:33:45Z

/test

fabiobrz · 2024-11-21T19:01:53Z

Intersmash PR CI check results

Hi @fabiobrz, this comment is meant to report the outcome of Intersmash integration tests,
which were triggered by @fabiobrz comment, see #206 (comment).

CI checks job <continuous-testing-umb-listener-for-intersmash-pr-checks#145> FAILED:

Intersmash integration tests job <eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap#84> reported failures.
Intersmash integration tests job <eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap-xp#93> reported failures.

Please verify your changes locally or reach out to maintainers in order to investigate the issues.

fabiobrz · 2024-11-22T08:29:29Z

Intersmash PR CI check results

Hi @fabiobrz, this comment is meant to report the outcome of Intersmash integration tests, which were triggered by @fabiobrz comment, see #206 (comment).

CI checks job <continuous-testing-umb-listener-for-intersmash-pr-checks#145> FAILED:
* Intersmash integration tests job <_eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap#84_> reported failures.

<eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap#84> reported 1 failure:

cz.xtf.core.waiting.WaiterException: Waiting for exactly 1 pods with label app.kubernetes.io/instance=wildfly-helm-helloworld-qs to be ready.
	at org.jboss.intersmash.testsuite.provision.openshift.WildflyHelmChartExistingValuesProvisionerTest.basicProvisioningTest(WildflyHelmChartExistingValuesProvisionerTest.java:50)

which is an unrelated random issue, reported as fixed by the subsequent run: <eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap#85> ✅

* Intersmash integration tests job <_eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap-xp#93_> reported failures.

<eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap-xp#93> was actually a failed build, restarted as <eap-8.x-intersmash-integration-tests-products-jboss-eap-xp#94>, where we had only 1 failure:

[ERROR] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.087 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.jboss.intersmash.testsuite.provision.openshift.operator.OperatorSubscriptionTestCase
[ERROR] org.jboss.intersmash.testsuite.provision.openshift.operator.OperatorSubscriptionTestCase  Time elapsed: 1.087 s  <<< ERROR!
io.fabric8.kubernetes.client.KubernetesClientException: Failure executing: DELETE at
...

which is an intermittent one, due to cluster instability. ✅

Based on the above findings, the changes in the PR are deemed to pass the integration tests and can now be reviewed.

…es in order to introduce Olm based provisioning, and generic operator provisioners. Also fixing the testsuite modules accordingly

… order to set the XP GA bits version

…r in order to use the new MAVEN_S2I_ARTIFACT_DIRS s2i env var, see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFWIP-667

…ent it

tommaso-borgato

LGTM, I just asked one question ....

tommaso-borgato · 2024-11-22T15:18:01Z

...tests/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.junit.platform.launcher.TestExecutionListener

@@ -1,2 +1 @@
 cz.xtf.junit5.listeners.TestExecutionLogger
-cz.xtf.junit5.listeners.ProjectCreator


@fabiobrz I didn't understand why we had to introduce it here ... I believed openshift project creation was already taken care ....

Thanks for your question @tommaso-borgato
I removed the class from the SPI registration because we can only use it for tests that are expected to run on OpenShift.

Previously we had it in here because we knew we were running only on OpenShift, and project creation was expected to happen anyway.

This is why now we let specific tests implement the two different interfaces for project (OCP) or namespace (k8s) creation.

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch 10 times, most recently from b6fb8df to 4298e0d Compare November 7, 2024 15:59

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch from 4298e0d to 5ea23c2 Compare November 13, 2024 08:37

fabiobrz requested a review from tommaso-borgato November 13, 2024 08:37

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch 4 times, most recently from a505dff to 788a78c Compare November 13, 2024 11:39

tommaso-borgato reviewed Nov 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch 8 times, most recently from b0eb8af to 2045dc9 Compare November 18, 2024 17:39

fabiobrz closed this Nov 18, 2024

fabiobrz reopened this Nov 18, 2024

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch 2 times, most recently from f49be5e to d88eabe Compare November 20, 2024 16:18

[issues-133] - Adding supported execution targets and conditional Ope…

ab4448c

…nShift/Kubernetes JUnit5 extension behavior

fabiobrz requested a review from tommaso-borgato November 20, 2024 17:45

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch 6 times, most recently from 51ecc38 to 78a9a0e Compare November 21, 2024 15:51

fabiobrz mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2024

Draft for k8s support #66

Closed

10 tasks

fabiobrz assigned tommaso-borgato Nov 22, 2024

fabiobrz added the it-passed label Nov 22, 2024

[issues-133] - Add a k8s client, and refactor core, provisioers modul…

19aa145

…es in order to introduce Olm based provisioning, and generic operator provisioners. Also fixing the testsuite modules accordingly

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch from 78a9a0e to a02967e Compare November 22, 2024 09:19

fabiobrz added 6 commits November 22, 2024 11:01

[issues-133] - Add Kubernetes integration tests GitHub workflow

44adfb1

[issues-133] - Upgrade Infinispan Operator CRDs to support 2.4.5.Final

a29c73f

[issues-133] - Kubernetes provisioning: documentation updates

b7a643d

[issues-133] - (Unrelated) Fix the testsuite EAP XP 5 deployments, in…

864c71d

… order to set the XP GA bits version

[issues-133] - (Unrelated) Updating a testsuite application descripto…

cd2cccc

…r in order to use the new MAVEN_S2I_ARTIFACT_DIRS s2i env var, see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFWIP-667

[issues-133] - (Unrelated) Support Kafka 3.8.0 in testsuite and docum…

e3537fe

…ent it

fabiobrz force-pushed the feat.k8s-take5 branch from a02967e to e3537fe Compare November 22, 2024 10:01

tommaso-borgato approved these changes Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Nov 22, 2024

tommaso-borgato merged commit c160b26 into Intersmash:main Nov 25, 2024
2 checks passed

fabiobrz mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2024

Enabling testsuite deployments configuration for using JBoss EAP XP 5 released bits #187

Closed

10 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

PoC for Kubernetes provisioning support (via OLM) #206

PoC for Kubernetes provisioning support (via OLM) #206

fabiobrz commented Nov 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 13, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 20, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 21, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 21, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 22, 2024

Intersmash PR CI check results

tommaso-borgato left a comment

tommaso-borgato Nov 22, 2024

fabiobrz Nov 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

		@@ -1,2 +1 @@
		cz.xtf.junit5.listeners.TestExecutionLogger
		cz.xtf.junit5.listeners.ProjectCreator

PoC for Kubernetes provisioning support (via OLM) #206

PoC for Kubernetes provisioning support (via OLM) #206

Conversation

fabiobrz commented Nov 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Description

Additional issues which are solved by this PR:

Type of change

Checklist

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tommaso-borgato Nov 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz commented Nov 13, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 20, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 21, 2024

fabiobrz commented Nov 21, 2024

Intersmash PR CI check results

fabiobrz commented Nov 22, 2024

Intersmash PR CI check results

tommaso-borgato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tommaso-borgato Nov 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz Nov 22, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabiobrz commented Nov 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fabiobrz Nov 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading