ROX-29840: access ocp console #16436
Conversation
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
Caution There are some errors in your PipelineRun template.
|
|
Images are ready for the commit at bc117fb. To use with deploy scripts, first |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dv/ROX-29840-base-config-for-cypress-e2e-test-ocp #16436 +/- ##
=====================================================================================
- Coverage 49.04% 48.91% -0.14%
=====================================================================================
Files 2625 2616 -9
Lines 193919 193258 -661
=====================================================================================
- Hits 95114 94537 -577
+ Misses 91351 91290 -61
+ Partials 7454 7431 -23
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding this!
Overall LGTM, although I think a lot of what I added in my parent branch was testing code that we may not want to merge.
I can approve once this branch is targeting master and the UI team can give input regarding the blockHosts option.
| // TODO: can we allow the ocp console but block other internet access? do we need to? | ||
| // blockHosts: ['*.*'], // Browser options |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did find this https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ROX-1865 and this https://github.com/stackrox/rox/pull/2304 from when this option was first added.
My initial thought is that it is probably fine to remove this? It only blocks external requests in CI, so I don't see why it would be a problem if the UI doesn't rely on external requests.
@alwayshooin do you have any context on this somewhat ancient change or opinions on whether or not we can remove this?
| @@ -28,8 +29,8 @@ fi | |||
| artifacts_dir="${TEST_RESULTS_OUTPUT_DIR:-cypress/test-results}/ocp-artifacts" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change from my branch isn't quite right either - it looks like the video artifacts are not available in the job results. This is something I can fix separately though. I was just looking for video evidence of the test working beyond the text output.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I ran it locally with cypress (and it confirmed it was logging in) but I didn't know how/where to find the video artifacts on a prow run.
Co-authored-by: David Vail <[email protected]>
Can we merge this into your branch and then you can adjust it from there? |
If you'd rather do it in one PR with this new branch, I had tested it on a draft PR to master that you can add/change and use: #16415 |
dvail
merged commit f612602
into
dv/ROX-29840-base-config-for-cypress-e2e-test-ocp
Co-authored-by: David Vail <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David Vail <[email protected]>
The smoke test passes on OCP4.19 with these changes (https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/stackrox_stackrox/16415/pull-ci-stackrox-stackrox-master-ocp-4-19-ui-e2e-tests/1957866898653712384/artifacts/ui-e2e-tests/stackrox-stackrox-e2e-test/build-log.txt):
The smoke test fails on ocp4.18 because of some text/intro changes (https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/stackrox_stackrox/16415/pull-ci-stackrox-stackrox-master-ocp-4-18-ui-e2e-tests/1957866898611769344):
Testing of this branch on PR: #16415
This uses the automation-flavors fix to prepare the dotenv file for use is here: https://github.com/stackrox/automation-flavors/pull/324