Open kachawla opened 4 days ago
:wave: @kachawla Thanks for filing this issue.
A project maintainer will review this issue and get back to you soon.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
:+1: We've reviewed this issue and have agreed to add it to our backlog. Please subscribe to this issue for notifications, we'll provide updates when we pick it up.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
Area for Improvement
Long running test workflow - cleanup cluster step.
Observed behavior
Each execution of the long running tests includes a cleanup step that removes multiple namespaces created by the functional tests. Currently the process for identifying which namespaces to delete relies on a hardcoded list, which is expected to be updated manually whenever a new namespace is added as a part of a functional test. This approach is fragile because it depends on legacy knowledge and puts the onus on contributors to read documentation (which I don't believe exists today for this). An example of this issue can be found here.
Desired behavior
Remove the hardcoded list of namespaces that is duplicated across the functional tests and the long running test workflow.
Proposed Fix
We should remove the dependency on a hardcoded list by either establishing a single source of truth for test namespaces, or a less involved solution would be to delete everything except
radius-system
+ any other namespace we want retain across runs.rad Version
Not applicable. Applies to all versions.
Operating system
No response
Additional context
No response
Would you like to support us?
AB#13249