[WIP] [TEST] Testing the behaviour when primary container name is different to the one in basePodSpec

[machichima]

Tracking issue

Why are the changes needed?

Add the test to validate the behaviour of MergePodSpec is as expected.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

How was this patch tested?

Labels

Please add one or more of the following labels to categorize your PR:

• added: For new features.
• changed: For changes in existing functionality.
• deprecated: For soon-to-be-removed features.
• removed: For features being removed.
• fixed: For any bug fixed.
• security: In case of vulnerabilities

This is important to improve the readability of release notes.

Setup process

Screenshots

Check all the applicable boxes

• I updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

Docs link

Summary by Bito

Implementation of test cases for MergePodSpec functionality, focusing on container name mismatch scenarios. Tests verify proper merging of container specifications, including volume mounts, environment variables, and tolerations. Changes include improvements in pod_helper_test.go with better formatting and consistent indentation for test assertions.

Unit tests added: True

Estimated effort to review (1-5, lower is better): 1

[flyte-bot]

Code Review Agent Run #e718a6

Actionable Suggestions - 0

Review Details

• Files reviewed - 1 · Commit Range: 913700d..913700d

  • flyteplugins/go/tasks/pluginmachinery/flytek8s/pod_helper_test.go
• Files skipped - 0
• Tools

  • Golangci-lint (Linter) - ✖︎ Failed
  • Whispers (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful
  • Detect-secrets (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful

---

AI Code Review powered by

[flyte-bot]

Changelist by Bito

This pull request implements the following key changes.

Key Change	Files Impacted
Testing - Pod Spec Merging Test Enhancement	- pod_helper_test.go - Added test case TestMergePodSpecsPrimaryContainerName to validate container name handling in MergePodSpecs

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 36.86%. Comparing base (ee919f8) to head (60653f7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6250      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.86%   36.86%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1318              
  Lines      134767   134767              
==========================================
- Hits        49684    49678       -6     
- Misses      80753    80759       +6     
  Partials     4330     4330              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog	51.58% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin	51.85% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unittests-flytecopilot	30.99% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl	62.29% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteidl	7.22% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteplugins	54.03% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytepropeller	42.78% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytestdlib	55.33% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[flyte-bot]

Code Review Agent Run #9f2d67

Actionable Suggestions - 0

Review Details

• Files reviewed - 1 · Commit Range: 913700d..60653f7

  • flyteplugins/go/tasks/pluginmachinery/flytek8s/pod_helper_test.go
• Files skipped - 0
• Tools

  • Golangci-lint (Linter) - ✖︎ Failed
  • Whispers (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful
  • Detect-secrets (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful

---

AI Code Review powered by