CNTRLPLANE-2247:Adding KMS TestKMSEncryptionOnOff test for Routes

[ardaguclu]

This PR is mirror of;

• CNTRLPLANE-2247:Adding KMS TestKMSEncryptionOnOff test cluster-kube-apiserver-operator#2027
• CNTRLPLANE-2247:Adding KMS TestKMSEncryptionOnOff test for AUTH cluster-authentication-operator#834

in order to enable KMS on/off test scenario in aggregated apiserver operators.

Until openshift/library-go#2086 is landed, tests will fail. However, since the test is marked as option, this won't create any issues.

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ardaguclu: This pull request references CNTRLPLANE-2247 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

This PR is mirror of;

• CNTRLPLANE-2247:Adding KMS TestKMSEncryptionOnOff test cluster-kube-apiserver-operator#2027
• CNTRLPLANE-2247:Adding KMS TestKMSEncryptionOnOff test for AUTH cluster-authentication-operator#834

in order to enable KMS on/off test scenario in aggregated apiserver operators.

Until openshift/library-go#2086 is landed, tests will fail. However, since the test is marked as option, this won't create any issues.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[p0lyn0mial]

why is this required ?

[ardaguclu]

E2E framework in this repo is designed that way

cluster-openshift-apiserver-operator/test/e2e-encryption/encryption_test.go

Lines 52 to 74 in 3f56d50

	ns := fmt.Sprintf("test-encryption-on-off-%s", rand.String(4))
	_, err := cs.KubeClient.CoreV1().Namespaces().Create(ctx, &corev1.Namespace{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: ns}}, metav1.CreateOptions{})
	require.NoError(t, err)
	defer cs.KubeClient.CoreV1().Namespaces().Delete(ctx, ns, metav1.DeleteOptions{})
	library.TestEncryptionTurnOnAndOff(t, library.OnOffScenario{
	BasicScenario: library.BasicScenario{
	Namespace: operatorclient.GlobalMachineSpecifiedConfigNamespace,
	LabelSelector: "encryption.apiserver.operator.openshift.io/component" + "=" + operatorclient.TargetNamespace,
	EncryptionConfigSecretName: fmt.Sprintf("encryption-config-%s", operatorclient.TargetNamespace),
	EncryptionConfigSecretNamespace: operatorclient.GlobalMachineSpecifiedConfigNamespace,
	OperatorNamespace: operatorclient.OperatorNamespace,
	TargetGRs: operatorencryption.DefaultTargetGRs,
	AssertFunc: operatorencryption.AssertRoutes,
	},
	CreateResourceFunc: func(t testing.TB, _ library.ClientSet, namespace string) runtime.Object {
	return operatorencryption.CreateAndStoreRouteOfLife(context.TODO(), t, operatorencryption.GetClients(t), ns)
	},
	AssertResourceEncryptedFunc: operatorencryption.AssertRouteOfLifeEncrypted,
	AssertResourceNotEncryptedFunc: operatorencryption.AssertRouteOfLifeNotEncrypted,
	ResourceFunc: func(t testing.TB, _ string) runtime.Object { return operatorencryption.RouteOfLife(t, ns) },
	ResourceName: "RouteOfLife",
	EncryptionProvider: configv1.EncryptionType(*provider),

. Therefore, CreateAndStoreRouteOfLife and RouteOfLife functions expect ns.

[p0lyn0mial]

ah, ic, thanks.

[p0lyn0mial]

/approve

[gangwgr]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ardaguclu, gangwgr, p0lyn0mial

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [p0lyn0mial]

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

[ardaguclu]

Failure of e2e-gcp-operator-encryption-kms is expected. Because controllers are not ready to handle KMS encryption type yet (i.e. openshift/library-go#2086).
/verified by openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator#2018

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ardaguclu: This PR has been marked as verified by https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/2018.

Details

In response to this:

Failure of e2e-gcp-operator-encryption-kms is expected. Because controllers are not ready to handle KMS encryption type yet (i.e. openshift/library-go#2086).
/verified by openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator#2018

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.