test/e2e: rename ginkgo focus for tests

[marquiz]

Make it easier to only run tests for nfd master/worker and skip topology-updater tests.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-nfd ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	adf79d5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-nfd/deploys/63f4ae05aec68600086cb884
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1065--kubernetes-sigs-nfd.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[ffromani]

/hold
/lgtm
feel free to unhold anytime. I think we should start to use ginkgo v2 labels (https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/MIGRATING_TO_V2#spec-labels)

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 36ce3236d82efb845354824d7210580e5f1c9464

[marquiz]

Thanks @ffromani.

feel free to unhold anytime. I think we should start to use ginkgo v2 labels (https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/MIGRATING_TO_V2#spec-labels)

Maybe 🤔 We're using kubernetest e2e framework and basically just copied test/e2e/apps/framework.go from K8s. I think nothing prevents us from diverging from the k8s e2e-framework in this aspect. But maybe that's a subject of a separate PR. Something that possibly needs a bit more thought – the tests should be split into multiple independent specs in order to get something out of the labels. WDYT?

[ffromani]

Thanks @ffromani.

feel free to unhold anytime. I think we should start to use ginkgo v2 labels (https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/MIGRATING_TO_V2#spec-labels)

Maybe thinking We're using kubernetest e2e framework and basically just copied test/e2e/apps/framework.go from K8s. I think nothing prevents us from diverging from the k8s e2e-framework in this aspect. But maybe that's a subject of a separate PR. Something that possibly needs a bit more thought – the tests should be split into multiple independent specs in order to get something out of the labels. WDYT?

these are very good points I don't have answers for and it's possible this is indeed (a temporary) blocker for labels.
I brought the labels up because it seems a much nicer and more flexible way to select specific tests than the focus approach.
Obviously I'm fine fixing the description. I agree reorganizing the test suite would be beneficial.
And yes, this is definitely material for a separate discussion.

NOTE: I'm holding only to allow other reviewers to chime in - holding is not about the label conversation

[ArangoGutierrez]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ArangoGutierrez, marquiz

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [marquiz]

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

[ffromani]

/hold cancel

because #1065 (review)