Skip to content

Conversation

@RoniKishner
Copy link
Contributor

Short description:

Add wait for boot sources re-imported after changing the default storage class in the cluster

More details:

After changing the default storage class, the data import crons re-import the data sources using the new storage class. this causes issues in following tests if we do not wait for the sources to complete the import.

What this PR does / why we need it:

Stabilise test_data_import_cron_deletion_on_opt_out by waiting for data sources import

jira-ticket:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CNV-64764

##### Short description:
Add wait for boot sources re-imported after changing the default storage
class in the cluster

##### More details:
After changing the default storage class, the data import crons
re-import the data sources using the new storage class. this causes
issues in following tests if we do not wait for the sources to complete
the import.

##### What this PR does / why we need it:
Stabilise `test_data_import_cron_deletion_on_opt_out` by waiting for
data sources import

<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->

## Summary by CodeRabbit

* **Tests**
* Enhanced test fixture validation with improved cleanup verification
during teardown
  * Enabled previously skipped test for normal execution

<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->

Signed-off-by: Roni Kishner <rkishner@redhat.com>
@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2026

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3
Copy link
Contributor

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

  • Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
  • Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
  • Issue Creation: A tracking issue is created for this PR and will be closed when the PR is merged or closed
  • Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
  • Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
  • Labels: Enabled categories: branch, can-be-merged, cherry-pick, has-conflicts, hold, needs-rebase, size, verified, wip

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

  • /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
  • /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
  • /hold - Block PR merging (approvers only)
  • /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging
  • /verified - Mark PR as verified
  • /verified cancel - Remove verification status
  • /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
  • /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message

Review & Approval

  • /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
  • /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
  • /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
  • /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
  • /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

  • /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
  • /retest build-container - Rebuild and test container image
  • /retest verify-bugs-are-open - verify-bugs-are-open (optional)
  • /retest all - Run all available tests

Container Operations

  • /build-and-push-container - Build and push container image (tagged with PR number)
    • Supports additional build arguments: /build-and-push-container --build-arg KEY=value

Cherry-pick Operations

  • /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
    • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3

Label Management

  • /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
  • /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

  1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
  2. LGTM Count: Minimum 2 /lgtm from reviewers
  3. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
  4. No Blockers: No WIP, hold, conflict labels
  5. Verified: PR must be marked as verified (if verification is enabled)

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

  • dshchedr
  • myakove
  • rnetser
  • vsibirsk

Reviewers:

  • RoniKishner
  • dshchedr
  • geetikakay
  • rnetser
  • vsibirsk
Available Labels
  • hold
  • verified
  • wip
  • lgtm
  • approve

💡 Tips

  • WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
  • Verification: The verified label is automatically removed on each new commit
  • Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
  • Container Builds: Container images are automatically tagged with the PR number
  • Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
  • Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

@RoniKishner
Copy link
Contributor Author

/verified

tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_import_crons.py
test_no_default_storage_class

@openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai

Test execution plan request details

CRITICAL: You MUST post an inline review comment on the first changed line of the first file.
The inline comment should contain the Test Execution Plan with the smoke tests recommendation.
Do NOT submit a formal review - just post the inline comment directly.

As an expert software testing engineer, analyze all modified files in this PR and create a targeted test execution plan.
You will post an inline review comment with the test execution plan on the first changed file.
If you fail to run or post a comment, retry.

Analysis Requirements:

  1. Examine code changes in each modified file
  2. Identify affected code paths, functions, and classes
  3. Analyze pytest-specific elements: fixtures (scope, dependencies), parametrization, markers, conftest changes
  4. Trace test dependencies through imports, shared utilities, and fixture inheritance
  5. Detect new tests introduced in the PR
  6. Smoke Test Impact Analysis: Determine if any changes could affect smoke tests by checking:
    • Changes to files/functions used by tests marked with @pytest.mark.smoke
    • Changes to fixtures or utilities imported by smoke tests
    • Changes to conftest.py files that may affect smoke test execution
    • Changes to core infrastructure code (utilities/, libs/) that smoke tests depend on

Your deliverable:
Your change request comment will be based on the following requirements:

Test Execution Plan

  • Run smoke tests: True / False (Based on your smoke test impact analysis - True if any changes may affect smoke tests)
  • path/to/test_file.py - When the entire test file needs verification
  • path/to/test_file.py::TestClass::test_method - When specific test(s) needed
  • path/to/test_file.py::test_function - When specific test(s) needed
  • -m marker - When specific marker(s) can be used to cover multiple cases.

Guidelines:

  • Include only tests directly affected by the changes
  • Use a full file path only if ALL tests in that file require verification
  • Use file path + test name if only specific tests are needed
  • If a test marker can cover multiple files/tests, provide the marker
  • Balance coverage vs over-testing - Keep descriptions minimal

CRITICAL WORKFLOW COMPLETION RULES:

When responding to this test execution plan request, you MUST follow these rules EXACTLY:

  1. YOUR ONLY DELIVERABLE: Post an inline review comment containing the test execution plan on the first changed line
  2. THEN STOP IMMEDIATELY - Do NOT generate any additional response
  3. FALLBACK ONLY: If submitting the review fails after retrying, post as a regular PR comment
  4. SILENCE = SUCCESS: After successfully submitting the review, your task is complete. No confirmation needed.

ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS (violating these creates empty/meaningless reviews):

  • ❌ Do NOT post acknowledgment messages like "Test execution plan posted", "Review posted successfully", "I've successfully posted"
  • ❌ Do NOT mention review IDs, URLs, or confirmation of posting in the PR thread
  • ❌ Do NOT add any follow-up comments after submitting the review
  • ❌ Do NOT reply to confirm task completion
  • ❌ Do NOT explain what you did - just do it and stop

Remember: The pull request review is visible to users. Additional comments are redundant noise.

CRITICAL: Before setting "Run smoke tests: True", you MUST use shell scripts to:
- Trace the actual fixture dependency chain from smoke tests to changed fixtures
- Verify that smoke tests actually import/use changed utilities or functions
- Confirm the dependency path exists; do NOT assume based on scope or semantics
- Be conservative: Session-scoped fixtures or infrastructure-sounding names do NOT
automatically mean smoke test impact. Only flag smoke test impact when you can
demonstrate a concrete dependency path.
WRONG: "This session-scoped storage fixture might affect smoke tests"
RIGHT: "Smoke test X uses fixture Y, which depends on the changed fixture Z"

Copy link
Collaborator

@rnetser rnetser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please add ref to the original pr so reviewers can have a reference

@geetikakay
Copy link
Contributor

@RoniKishner change is okay but a complete back port would be a better solution. There are lot of changes made previously so i just created a backport #3550 including all those changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants