Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Do not assert against Generation in conformance tests - #475
Merged
bobcatfish merged 1 commit intoMar 23, 2018
Conversation
The values the conformance test was asserting against were wrong. Route.Generation and Configuration.Generation should actually have a value of 1 when they are first created, and the *.Status.Generation values are just hacks until CRD generations are updated properly (which is fixed in kubernetes/kubernetes#58778 but we are not yet using). I want to remove these assertions since they are just asserting against a hack. We should actually assert against Configuration.Generation and Route.Generation when we have pulled in the fix.
@bobcatfish: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
mattmoor
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2018
adrcunha
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2018
adrcunha
commented
Mar 23, 2018
Contributor
/approve |
google-prow-robot
commented
Mar 23, 2018
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: adrcunha, bobcatfish The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
google-prow-robot pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2018
…1428) In #475 I removed assertions against Configuration.Spec.Generation b/c it is a hack and not part of the knative spec. In #600 I updated the conformance tests to assert against the Revision annotation which contains the generation. BUT THEN in #778 when I completely re-wrote the tests to no longer use Ginkgo, I accidentally undid both of those changes, so this commit puts them back 😅. BONUS: I hit a case where the length of the loadbalancer ingresses was 0 and got a panic, so if that happens again we'll get an informative error instead.
nak3 added a commit
to nak3/serving
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
* Update catalogsource to 1.8.0 This patch updates catalogsource to v1.8.0. Also, it updates `openshift/olm/catalog.sh` to use minimal catalogsource. Previously the catalogsource contains all version, but it cuts unnecessary old versions for CI. * Add comment for patch
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
The values the conformance test was asserting against were wrong.
Route.Generation and Configuration.Generation should actually have
a value of 1 when they are first created, and the *.Status.Generation
values are just hacks until CRD generations are updated properly
(which is fixed in kubernetes/kubernetes#58778
but we are not yet using).
I want to remove these assertions since they are just asserting
against a hack. We should actually assert against
Configuration.Generation and Route.Generation when we have pulled in the
fix.