add envtests for extraMounts feature by posikoya · Pull Request #456 · openstack-k8s-operators/test-operator

posikoya · 2026-06-18T13:03:50Z

The extraMounts feature allows mounting additional volumes (ConfigMaps, Secrets, PVCs) into test pods via propagation filtering.

Add extraMounts envtests for all four controllers (AnsibleTest, Tempest, Tobiko, HorizonTest) that verify the reconciler correctly propagates extra volumes and volumeMounts to the pod spec.i

kstrenkova

Thank you for the PR! I have tried running it locally and it is working as expected :D

Overall the functionality and scale of the tests is nice, however I would like you to introduce a few helper functions into test/functional/base_test.go to reduce the repetition and code clutter. I have commented on a few, but please note that all of the code creating resources and searching for a name match should be helper functions, even when I have not marked them.

Note: I think Claude will have a quick solution for this (moving code into helper functions) if you feel like it's too repetitive to fix it all.
Note2: The name of the commit should start with a verb to keep good practice.

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:14:30Z

+			testOperatorConfigMap := CreateTestOperatorConfigMap(namespace)
+			Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, testOperatorConfigMap)).Should(Succeed())
+
+			extraConfigMap := &corev1.ConfigMap{


Could you create a helper function that would create this extraConfigMap? Something like CreateExtraMountConfigMap?

+1 and I would suggest creating this function to the base_test file.

ack - I had added helper generic funcs to the base_test file and i will update the rest of the tests. the current changes are currently passing on ansible test and has cut down alot of the duplication here. also ramping up on this test framework, i added some additions such as context https://medium.com/@dees3g/testing-with-ginkgo-and-gomega-1f1ecc8407a8 to reduce duplicated calls also. really appreciate the reviews here both :)

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:15:31Z

+			Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, extraConfigMap)).Should(Succeed())
+
+			spec := GetDefaultAnsibleTestSpec()
+			spec["extraMounts"] = []map[string]any{


Same here. It could be a helper function that would have AnsibleTest as a variable so it could be used for other resource types as well :D

+1, e.g.

func BuildConfigMapExtraMountSpec(propagation string, volName string, cmName string, mountPath string) []map[string]any { ... } func BuildSecretExtraMountSpec(propagation string, volName string, secretName string, mountPath string) []map[string]any { ... }

Done: I added the func BuildExtraMountsSpec with return signature return []map[string]any{ {"extraVol": []map[string]any{extraVol}}, } to account for the scenario of multiple mounts (mount 0 - mount N-1) with different types (configmap + secret)

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:16:16Z

+			testOperatorConfigMap := CreateTestOperatorConfigMap(namespace)
+			Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, testOperatorConfigMap)).Should(Succeed())
+
+			extraSecret := &corev1.Secret{


Same here as with the config map, but maybe it could be CreateExtraMountSecret?

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:17:28Z

+		It("should add extra volume and volumeMount to the pod", func() {
+			pod := GetTestOperatorPod(namespace, ansibleTestName.Name)
+
+			foundVolume := false


This could be a helper function as well, something that looks for volumes and is just called with the volume name as parameter (plus all other parameters needed).

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:17:45Z

+			Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, extraSecret)).Should(Succeed())
+
+			spec := GetDefaultAnsibleTestSpec()
+			spec["extraMounts"] = []map[string]any{


Same here, but with secret.

kstrenkova · 2026-06-29T12:18:35Z

+			Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, extraDataMap)).Should(Succeed())
+
+			spec := GetDefaultAnsibleTestSpec()
+			spec["extraMounts"] = []map[string]any{


This one also needs a helper function, the code it too long to just be here and make clutter :D

I agree also i moved the logic to the helper funcs file in base_test and done

Valkyrie00 · 2026-06-30T15:29:42Z

Hey @posikoya, the test scenarios themselves are well-chosen and functionally correct.
The blocking issue is the extensive code duplication. I agree with all of @kstrenkova's comments, especially regarding the helper functions, extracting those would make the PR dramatically smaller and test code more maintainable 👍

openshift-ci · 2026-07-06T23:26:03Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: posikoya
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from kstrenkova. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-07-07T11:58:19Z

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/69445af515a44331b6270e6a640ababb

❌ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider FAILURE in 5m 02s
⚠️ podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc-test-operator SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider

posikoya · 2026-07-07T12:01:52Z

recheck

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-07-07T12:07:33Z

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/82df967fc7a8428da0506c0ccfed1ea1

❌ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider FAILURE in 4m 15s
⚠️ podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc-test-operator SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider

The extraMounts feature allows mounting additional volumes (ConfigMaps, Secrets, PVCs) into test pods via propagation filtering. Goal is to add extraMounts envtests for all four controllers (AnsibleTest, Tempest, Tobiko, HorizonTest) that verify the reconciler correctly propagates extra volumes and volumeMounts to the pod spec

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-07-07T12:32:12Z

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/ede7e5fb0bd34404a4014a2d72bea4a3

❌ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider FAILURE in 4m 22s
⚠️ podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc-test-operator SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider

posikoya self-assigned this Jun 18, 2026

openshift-ci Bot requested review from adrianfusco and dprince June 18, 2026 13:03

posikoya marked this pull request as draft June 18, 2026 13:03

openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label Jun 18, 2026

posikoya force-pushed the posikoya/env-tests-extraMounts branch 8 times, most recently from 7d45b9f to cfe51ee Compare June 20, 2026 02:03

posikoya marked this pull request as ready for review June 22, 2026 08:33

openshift-ci Bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label Jun 22, 2026

openshift-ci Bot requested review from Valkyrie00 and abays June 22, 2026 08:33

kstrenkova requested changes Jun 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci Bot assigned kstrenkova Jun 29, 2026

posikoya force-pushed the posikoya/env-tests-extraMounts branch from cfe51ee to 38ffac2 Compare July 6, 2026 23:25

posikoya force-pushed the posikoya/env-tests-extraMounts branch from 38ffac2 to 2fb5c4c Compare July 7, 2026 11:51

posikoya added the ready-for-review Marks additional review needed label Jul 7, 2026

posikoya changed the title ~~envtests for extraMounts feature~~ add envtests for extraMounts feature Jul 7, 2026

posikoya removed the ready-for-review Marks additional review needed label Jul 7, 2026

posikoya force-pushed the posikoya/env-tests-extraMounts branch from 2fb5c4c to f943fe3 Compare July 7, 2026 12:26

posikoya requested a review from kstrenkova July 7, 2026 12:33

Uh oh!

Conversation

posikoya commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

kstrenkova left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Valkyrie00 commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

posikoya commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants