Skip to content

Do-not-review: testing CI #2269

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

Draft
wants to merge 2,344 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

MaysaMacedo
Copy link

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?


Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


sreeram-venkitesh and others added 30 commits March 20, 2025 21:12
Split out a helper to assert correct EndpointSlice hints (and extend
that helper to deal with node hints as well, including making sure
they *aren't* present when the traffic distribution mode doesn't call
for them).
…on_filter_NodeResources

chore(scheduler): add filter integration tests for missing part plugins: NodeResources plugin
…nhost

[e2e/node] update base image from busybox to agnhost
…fault

[KEP-4265]: features: bump proc mount to on by default beta
There was one error path that led to a "controller has shut down" log
message. Other errors caused different log entries or are so unlikely (event
handler registration failure!) that they weren't checked at all.

It's clearer to let Run return an error in all cases and then log the
"controller has shut down" error at the call site. This also enables tests to
mark themselves as failed, should that ever happen.
Events get recorded in the apiserver asynchronously, so even if the test knows
that the event has been evicted because the pod is deleted, it still has to
also check for the event to be recorded.

This caused a flake in the "Consistently" check of events.
This reverts commit f0a1473 and kuberuntime_container_linux_test.go change.
…tuses-by-its-sandboxid

Ensure that the pod has proper phase upon re-initialization
…SupplementalGroupsPolicy-to-Beta

KEP-3619: Promote SupplementalGroupsPolicy feature to Beta
…options-ga

node: kep-2625: cpu manager policy options GA
Adjust the test logic on TestGetStaticPodToMirrorPodMap
…ervercore_ltsc2025

Add ltsc2025 for windows-servercore-cache test image
…delegate-list

Unify should delegate list
Normally the scheduler shouldn't schedule when there is a taint, but perhaps it
didn't know yet.

The TestEviction/update test covered this, but only failed under the right
timing conditions. The new event handler test case covers it reliably.
The timed worker queue actually can have nil entries in its map if the work was
kicked off immediately. This looks like an unnecessary special case (it would
be fine to call AfterFunc with a duration <= 0 and it would do the right
thing), but to avoid more sweeping changes the fix consists of documenting this
special behavior and adding a nil check.
The features are always enabled, so the tests don't need to be
conditional.
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 15, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the backports/unvalidated-commits Indicates that not all commits come to merged upstream PRs. label Apr 15, 2025
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 15, 2025

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo MaysaMacedo changed the title Maysa test Do-not-review: testing CI Apr 15, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files label Apr 15, 2025
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 15, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: MaysaMacedo
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jerpeter1 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

1 similar comment
@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@MaysaMacedo: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits are valid:

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

@MaysaMacedo
Copy link
Author

/test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented May 3, 2025

@MaysaMacedo: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn 987f714 link true /test k8s-e2e-gcp-ovn

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backports/unvalidated-commits Indicates that not all commits come to merged upstream PRs. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.