Added tests for pkg/scheduler/scheduler.go #5645
Conversation
karmada-bot
added
the
kind/feature
karmada-bot
added
the
size/XXL
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5645 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 35.19% 37.03% +1.83%
==========================================
Files 645 648 +3
Lines 44869 45079 +210
==========================================
+ Hits 15792 16693 +901
+ Misses 27846 27118 -728
- Partials 1231 1268 +37
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
/assign |
pkg/scheduler/scheduler_test.go
Outdated
| if tt.expectSchedule { | ||
| assert.Len(t, patchActions, len(tt.expectedPatches), "Expected %d patch actions, got %d", len(tt.expectedPatches), len(patchActions)) | ||
| for i, expectedPatch := range tt.expectedPatches { | ||
| if i < len(patchActions) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why add this judgment?
In addition, the judgment logic of the TestDoScheduleClusterBinding and TestDoScheduleBinding functions is different. Can the TestDoScheduleClusterBinding and TestDoScheduleBinding functions directly determine the binding field obtained at the same time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll remove those judgements and refractor both tests to be consistent.
| if (err != nil) != tt.expectError { | ||
| t.Errorf("scheduleResourceBindingWithClusterAffinities() error = %v, expectError %v", err, tt.expectError) | ||
| } | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The result is not judged later. The test method can be the same as that of the TestScheduleResourceBindingWithClusterAffinity.
Signed-off-by: Anuj Agrawal <[email protected]> Added tests for pkg/scheduler/scheduler.go Signed-off-by: Anuj Agrawal <[email protected]>
Yes it is big and the scheduler package is hard to test. |
anujagrawal699
force-pushed
the
addedTests-pkg/scheduler/scheduler.go
branch
from
681e490 to
9a0abbf
Compare
|
[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.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
You can consider splitting pr. |
I had a question. As i have used mocks, if i spilt the file than the CI tests might fail. That's the reason i tried to make a single PR for a single file. How can i tackle it? |
We need to look at what error caused the ci failure. Generally, CI failures are recorded in clear logs to tell us how to modify them. |
|
Hi @anujagrawal699, do we still need this pr? |
No, i'll close it. Thanks. |
Description:
This PR significantly enhances the unit tests for the scheduler package. The improvements aim to increase code reliability, maintainability, and test coverage for various scheduler functions.
Modifications:
Key Improvements:
doSchedule,doScheduleBinding, anddoScheduleClusterBindingfunctions.scheduleResourceBindingWithClusterAffinityandscheduleResourceBindingWithClusterAffinities.scheduleClusterResourceBindingWithClusterAffinityandscheduleClusterResourceBindingWithClusterAffinities.patchScheduleResultForResourceBinding.scheduleNextmethod.recordScheduleResultEventForResourceBinding.placementChangedfunction.TestCreateSchedulerTest Coverage:
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes a part of #5470
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: