New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Have a better plan to make sure our e2e test cover enough scenarios #133

Closed

zhangtbj opened this issue Apr 20, 2020 · 1 comment

Labels

e2e

Contributor

zhangtbj commented Apr 20, 2020

I think we can have a better understanding at least in our side that what we cover enough cases and avoid overlapping, for example:

Sample	Build Strategy	Build source	ServiceAccount	ResourceLimit	Secret	Feature xxx
build_kaniko_cr	Dockerfile	golang	default	none	none	xxx
build_buildah_cr	Dockerfile	pythong	name	CPU	builder	xxx
build_buildah_cr_custom_context+dockerfile	Dockerfile	java	auto	CPU&memory	none	xxx
build_buildpacks-v3_cr.	buildpacks	nodejs	none	none	none	xxx
build_buildpacks-v3_namespaces_cr.	buildpacks	golang	false	buildRun	none	xxx
...	...	...	...	...	...	...

In future, if we want to add new tests or update the existing tests. We need to follow a rule or list to make sure our coverage is ok.

zhangtbj mentioned this issue

Community meeting April 20 Agenda #126

Closed

otaviof added the e2e label

Contributor

qu1queee commented Aug 8, 2020

I think we are on a good point regarding e2e, @zhangtbj this will be improved once we do the #322 . Can I close this issue?

zhangtbj closed this as completed

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