USHIFT-6789: Fix etcd issue#6484
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository YAML (base), Organization UI (inherited) Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughAdds a new Robot Framework keyword Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot`:
- Line 151: The test call to the Robot keyword "Command Should Work" with
${ETCDCTL_CMD} put /defrag-test/key-${i} uses an unquoted $(head -c 1024
/dev/urandom | base64) which can be split by newlines; update the test so the
generated payload is passed as a single argument to etcdctl (either wrap the
$(...) substitution in quotes or change the base64 invocation to emit no line
breaks, e.g., use base64 with the no-wrap option), ensuring the value after "put
/defrag-test/key-${i}" is not subject to shell word-splitting.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Organization UI (inherited)
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 72ca2f3d-d5b5-407e-96cf-e704f3f436b8
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@kasturinarra: This pull request references USHIFT-6789 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot (1)
156-156: Refactor Line 156 for maintainability/debuggability.The nested shell+Python substitution is hard to troubleshoot. Split status fetch, revision parse, and compact into separate steps.
Proposed refactor
- Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact $(${ETCDCTL_CMD} endpoint status --write-out\=json | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)[0]['Status']['header']['revision'])") + ${status}= Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} endpoint status --write-out\=json + ${revision}= Command Should Work + ... printf '%s' '${status}' | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)[0]['Status']['header']['revision'])" + Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact ${revision}🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot` at line 156, Refactor the nested shell+Python substitution in the Robot test by splitting it into three clear steps: (1) call `${ETCDCTL_CMD} endpoint status --write-out=json` with `Command Should Work` and capture its stdout into a variable, (2) parse that JSON stdout to extract `Status.header.revision` (e.g., using a small Robot Python keyword or the `Evaluate` keyword instead of an inline `python3 -c`), and store the revision in e.g. `${REVISION}`, and (3) run `Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact ${REVISION}`; replace the single-line `Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact $(...)` with these three steps so `ETCDCTL_CMD`, the status call, the parsing logic, and the `compact` call are all explicit and easier to debug.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In `@test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot`:
- Line 156: Refactor the nested shell+Python substitution in the Robot test by
splitting it into three clear steps: (1) call `${ETCDCTL_CMD} endpoint status
--write-out=json` with `Command Should Work` and capture its stdout into a
variable, (2) parse that JSON stdout to extract `Status.header.revision` (e.g.,
using a small Robot Python keyword or the `Evaluate` keyword instead of an
inline `python3 -c`), and store the revision in e.g. `${REVISION}`, and (3) run
`Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact ${REVISION}`; replace the
single-line `Command Should Work ${ETCDCTL_CMD} compact $(...)` with these three
steps so `ETCDCTL_CMD`, the status call, the parsing logic, and the `compact`
call are all explicit and easier to debug.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Organization UI (inherited)
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 7c60af01-f721-46fb-b0d5-440777f615a6
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/suites/standard1/etcd.robot
|
/test e2e-aws-tests-release-arm-periodic |
|
/pj-rehearse periodic-ci-openshift-microshift-release-4.22-periodics-e2e-aws-tests-release-arm-periodic |
|
/test e2e-aws-tests-periodic-arm |
|
/test e2e-aws-tests-release-arm |
|
@kasturinarra thank you very much for this fix. I added If your proposal in current PR works and it's stable I'm happy to merged it. If not or difficult to maintain I think it's safe to remove it. |
|
/retest |
@agullon ah, any specific reason you added it ? We had a discussion about this and thought this was a case that was added long back, if this does not test anything let us remove it instead of wasting cycles to fix it ? WDYS ? |
Main reason I added it: it took less than a second to run, and I thought it may be nice to have it. With the change you added it this PR it looks is not gonna failed anymore because, I checked it reviewing this log. But it takes now 20 seconds to run, which is ok. I'll lgtm and override failed CI jobs. You can decide to apply verified label or close the PR. I'm ok either way. /lgtm |
|
@agullon: Overrode contexts on behalf of agullon: ci/prow/e2e-aws-tests-bootc-arm-el9, ci/prow/e2e-aws-tests-bootc-el10, ci/prow/e2e-aws-tests-bootc-el9, ci/prow/e2e-aws-tests-release-arm 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. |
@kasturinarra you can reduce the time it takes to run reducing the for loops to run 20 times intead of 100, for example. |
@pmtk WDYT ? shall we go ahead and merge it ? |
I'm not sure if 20 iterations would provide enough fragmentation. /lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: agullon, kasturinarra, pmtk 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 |
|
/verified by CI |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
verified
|
@kasturinarra: This PR has been marked as verified by 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@kasturinarra: all tests passed! 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
4 participants
No description provided.