test/e2e: more flexible pod spec generation

[marquiz]

Change the pod spec generator functions to accept parameterization in
the form of more generic "mutator functions". This makes the addition of
new test specific pod spec customizations a lot cleaner. Plus, hopefully
makes the code a bit more readable as well.

Also, slightly simplify the SpecWithConfigMap() but dropping one
redundant argument.

Inspired by latest contributions by Talor Itzhak (titzhak@redhat.com).

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-nfd ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1719ce6
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-nfd/deploys/637dcdd45a0cbc0009faf23b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-964--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.

[marquiz]

/assign @ArangoGutierrez @fmuyassarov

ping @Tal-or

[Tal-or]

Very nice.
A small enhancement proposal from me about readability:
You can have a separate package named pod or podspec under utils and place NFDWorkerPod NFDMasterPod, etc. functions there.

Then you can rename the functions and call them from the tests in the following manner:
instead of:

testutils.NFDWorkerPod(opts...)
testutils.NFDMasterPod(opts...)
testutils.SpecWithContainerImage(...)

You'll have:

pod.NFDWorker(opts...)
pod.NFDMaster(opts...)
pod.SpecWithContainerImage(...)

It will keep the names shorter, clearer, and make the package more isolated and portable

[marquiz]

Thanks for the review @Tal-or

A small enhancement proposal from me about readability:
You can have a separate package named pod or podspec under utils and place NFDWorkerPod NFDMasterPod, etc. functions there.

Good note, I agree.

How about doing this refactoring in a separate PR? I think there are other things to be done on this front, e.g. separating the daemonset functionality in a separate package (or a separate file at least). Another thing that I spotted was that we could simplify the "sleeper pod" creation, basically set resource limits with a dedicated PodSpecOption. We could track these in a separate issue

[Tal-or]

Thanks for the review @Tal-or

A small enhancement proposal from me about readability:
You can have a separate package named pod or podspec under utils and place NFDWorkerPod NFDMasterPod, etc. functions there.

Good note, I agree.

How about doing this refactoring in a separate PR? I think there are other things to be done on this front, e.g. separating the daemonset functionality in a separate package (or a separate file at least). Another thing that I spotted was that we could simplify the "sleeper pod" creation, basically set resource limits with a dedicated PodSpecOption. We could track these in a separate issue

Sure. I can handle it if you want.

[k8s-triage-robot]

Unknown CLA label state. Rechecking for CLA labels.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/check-cla
/easycla

[marquiz]

Sure. I can handle it if you want.

Yeah, sure go ahead. Would be appreciated 👍

[marquiz]

Updated the PR, converting nfd-worker tests to also use SpecWithConfigMap()

[marquiz]

@Tal-or so I suggest to merge this PR with its current scope/content and submit further enhancements as separate PRs? Makes also review easier as smaller diffstat per PR.

[Tal-or]

Sure, go ahead

[marquiz]

ping @ArangoGutierrez @fmuyassarov

[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