🌱 add checker to validate conditions for v1beta2 by sivchari · Pull Request #12111 · kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api

sivchari · 2025-04-21T07:02:36Z

/area ci
/area testing
/area e2e-testing

close #11963

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

sivchari · 2025-04-29T15:12:45Z

/retest

sivchari · 2025-05-08T14:03:19Z

/close

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-05-08T14:03:25Z

@sivchari: Closed this PR.

Details

In response to this:

Got it, we don't use v1beta1 anymore, so this validation is never success.
/close

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.

sivchari · 2025-05-08T14:11:38Z

/reopen

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-05-08T14:11:44Z

@sivchari: Reopened this PR.

Details

In response to this:

/reopen

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 · 2025-05-13T12:54:27Z

test/e2e/clusterctl_upgrade.go

 		}

+		Byf("Verify v1beta2 Available and Ready conditions (if exist) to be true for Cluster and Machines")
+		verifyV1Beta2ConditionsTrueV1Beta1(ctx, input.BootstrapClusterProxy.GetClient(), workloadClusterName, workloadClusterNamespace,


Suggested change

verifyV1Beta2ConditionsTrueV1Beta1(ctx, input.BootstrapClusterProxy.GetClient(), workloadClusterName, workloadClusterNamespace,

verifyV1Beta2ConditionsTrueV1Beta1(ctx, managementClusterProxy, workloadClusterName, workloadClusterNamespace,

Should this be managementClusterProxy?

(like in l.726)

sbueringer · 2025-05-13T12:59:18Z

test/e2e/scale.go

-		clusterNamesToDelete := []string{}
-		for _, result := range clusterCreateResults {
-			clusterNamesToDelete = append(clusterNamesToDelete, result.clusterName)
+		for _, cluster := range clusterCreateResults {


Not sure if I would change the scale test. Or at least it would not be the first one where I would add this validation.

These conditions won't be true if input.SkipWaitForCreation is true

It's not easy to verify if this test is still green at high scale

Can we maybe in this PR rather add this validation to our other e2e tests? I think that would be more valuable

Currently, v1veta1 schema are only registered in 2 file I modified. So to add this validation to other e2e tests, do we enable v1beta1 scheme to whole tests ?

Ah I see. Let's create a copy of the verify func that uses v1beta2 and use that in other places

clusterctl upgrade is a special case. Not sure why we have v1beta1 in the scale test :D

sbueringer · 2025-05-13T13:00:43Z

test/e2e/clusterctl_upgrade.go

-		return c.Get(ctx, key, cluster)
-	}, 3*time.Minute, 3*time.Second).Should(Succeed(), "Failed to get Cluster object %s", klog.KRef(clusterNamespace, clusterName))
-
-	if cluster.Status.V1Beta2 != nil && len(cluster.Status.V1Beta2.Conditions) > 0 {


Looks like we need a rebase (cluster.Status.v1beta2 doesn't exist anymore)

test/e2e/common.go

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

fabriziopandini · 2025-07-30T08:45:25Z

lgtm pending fix to CI failures

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

fabriziopandini · 2025-07-30T10:14:09Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-30T10:14:16Z

LGTM label has been added.

Details

Git tree hash: e45ba3e949e8ff3c6a96d95fa74765596d6ac66d

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-30T10:14:18Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [fabriziopandini]

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

k8s-ci-robot requested review from elmiko and richardcase April 21, 2025 07:02

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from e107322 to 6dc0ee3 Compare April 21, 2025 08:04

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from 6dc0ee3 to 0abf799 Compare April 29, 2025 13:49

sivchari changed the title ~~[WIP] add checker to validate conditions for v1beta2~~ 🌱 add checker to validate conditions for v1beta2 Apr 29, 2025

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 29, 2025

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from 0abf799 to aac7c75 Compare April 29, 2025 17:39

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from aac7c75 to ab8f1eb Compare May 8, 2025 13:29

k8s-ci-robot closed this May 8, 2025

k8s-ci-robot reopened this May 8, 2025

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from ab8f1eb to 3e41252 Compare May 8, 2025 14:13

sbueringer reviewed May 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

sbueringer mentioned this pull request May 15, 2025

Move APIs into a central location #12203

Closed

1 task

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch 2 times, most recently from f334735 to 58ff884 Compare May 15, 2025 07:06

sbueringer mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2025

Tracking issue for v1Beta2 #11947

Closed

84 tasks

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 11, 2025

fabriziopandini reviewed Jul 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fabriziopandini reviewed Jul 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/common.go Show resolved Hide resolved

sivchari added 4 commits July 29, 2025 17:04

add function to check v1beta2 conditions

39ec951

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

apply v1beta2 validation to e2e tests

e7ca5f4

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

move Verify functions to framework

4baa868

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

replace Verify functions

671164e

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from 58ff884 to 671164e Compare July 30, 2025 08:20

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 30, 2025

fix lint

12432c0

Signed-off-by: sivchari <shibuuuu5@gmail.com>

sivchari force-pushed the validate-conditions-v1beta2 branch from cf9bd3c to 12432c0 Compare July 30, 2025 09:40

k8s-ci-robot assigned fabriziopandini Jul 30, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 30, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 30, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit e9d395f into kubernetes-sigs:main Jul 30, 2025
18 checks passed

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.11 milestone Jul 30, 2025

sbueringer mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2025

🌱 Improve check for Cluster Available condition in e2e tests #12594

Merged

nojnhuh mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2026

Workload cluster upgrade e2e tests flake on new check for Cluster's Available condition kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-azure#6068

Open

	verifyV1Beta2ConditionsTrueV1Beta1(ctx, input.BootstrapClusterProxy.GetClient(), workloadClusterName, workloadClusterNamespace,
	verifyV1Beta2ConditionsTrueV1Beta1(ctx, managementClusterProxy, workloadClusterName, workloadClusterNamespace,

Conversation

sivchari commented Apr 21, 2025

Uh oh!

sivchari commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sivchari commented May 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 8, 2025

Uh oh!

sivchari commented May 8, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented May 8, 2025

Uh oh!

sbueringer May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sivchari May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sbueringer May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fabriziopandini commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

fabriziopandini commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

sivchari commented May 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading