🌱 Add nodeVolumeDetachTimeout & minReadySeconds for MD to RuntimeSDK e2e test template#10933
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/runtime-sdk
|
/test ? |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XS
|
@willie-yao: The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
DetailsIn response to this:
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. |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
|
I think we don't use volumes in our tests (we don't have a CSI implementation for capd) How could setting the timeout influence tests? 😀 |
Whoops I didn't know that! I saw that it was included everywhere else so I just assumed that could be causing the issue. I'll continue to look for the source of the flake in that case. |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
|
No worries. Fine to add this config anyway. |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
| - class: "default-worker" | ||
| name: "md-0" | ||
| nodeDeletionTimeout: "30s" | ||
| nodeVolumeDetachTimeout: "5m" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
q: are we using volumes in this test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, just noticed that there was an inconsistency with how the template was updated, but it shouldn't actually affect the outcome of this test. I'll try and circle back on the actual source of the flake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No we are not using them. But I think it doesn't hurt to have a bit more happy-path coverage here
sbueringer
changed the title
|
Let's merge this PR. It won't fix the flake but it doesn't hurt either |
|
/test ? |
sbueringer
changed the title
|
/test ? |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-conformance-ci-latest-main |
|
@sbueringer: The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
DetailsIn response to this:
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. |
|
@sbueringer: The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
DetailsIn response to this:
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. |
|
Looks like GitHub has problems. Apart from that. Let's merge once tests are green /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: b3d4df8488d296da74d939977d9032ffbd078666 |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/retest |
4 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR sets a few additional fields for happy path e2e test coverage
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):/area runtime-sdk
/area testing