summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/e2e/rename_test.go
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* event: generate a valid event on container rename operationAditya R2022-03-28
| | | | | | | | Following commit ensures that podman generates a valid event on `podman container rename` where event specifies that it is a rename event and container name swtichted to the latest name. Signed-off-by: Aditya R <arajan@redhat.com>
* bump go module to version 4Valentin Rothberg2022-01-18
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Automated for .go files via gomove [1]: `gomove github.com/containers/podman/v3 github.com/containers/podman/v4` Remaining files via vgrep [2]: `vgrep github.com/containers/podman/v3` [1] https://github.com/KSubedi/gomove [2] https://github.com/vrothberg/vgrep Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <rothberg@redhat.com>
* Ensure pod ID bucket is properly updated on renameMatthew Heon2021-09-28
| | | | | | | | | | | | | As we were not updating the pod ID bucket, removing a pod with containers still in it (including the infra container, which will always suffer from this) will not properly update the name registry to remove the name of any renamed containers. This patch ensures that does not happen - all containers will be fully removed, even if renamed. Fixes #11750 Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
* e2e tests: use Should(Exit()) and ExitWithError()Ed Santiago2021-07-15
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | e2e test failures are rife with messages like: Expected 1 to equal 0 These make me cry. They're anti-helpful, requiring the reader to dive into the source code to figure out what those numbers mean. Solution: Go tests have a '.Should(Exit(NNN))' mechanism. I don't know if it spits out a better diagnostic (I have no way to run e2e tests on my laptop), but I have to fantasize that it will, and given the state of our flakes I assume that at least one test will fail and give me the opportunity to see what the error message looks like. THIS IS NOT REVIEWABLE CODE. There is no way for a human to review it. Don't bother. Maybe look at a few random ones for sanity. If you want to really review, here is a reproducer of what I did: cd test/e2e ! positive assertions. The second is the same as the first, ! with the addition of (unnecessary) parentheses because ! some invocations were written that way. The third is BeZero(). perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit(0))/' *_test.go ! Same as above, but handles three non-numeric exit codes ! in run_exit_test.go perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\S+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go ! negative assertions. Difference is the spelling of 'To(Not)', ! 'ToNot', and 'NotTo'. I assume those are all the same. perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Not\(Equal\((0)\)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.NotTo\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go ! negative, old use of BeZero() perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go Run those on a clean copy of main branch (at the same branch point as my PR, of course), then diff against a checked-out copy of my PR. There should be no differences. Then all you have to review is that my replacements above are sane. UPDATE: nope, that's not enough, you also need to add gomega/gexec to the files that don't have it: perl -pi -e '$_ .= "$1/gexec\"\n" if m!^(.*/onsi/gomega)"!' $(grep -L gomega/gexec $(git log -1 --stat | awk '$1 ~ /test\/e2e\// { print $1}')) UPDATE 2: hand-edit run_volume_test.go UPDATE 3: sigh, add WaitWithDefaultTimeout() to a couple of places UPDATE 4: skip a test due to bug #10935 (race condition) Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
* Rewrite Rename backend in a more atomic fashionMatthew Heon2021-03-02
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Move the core of renaming logic into the DB. This guarantees a lot more atomicity than we have right now (our current solution, removing the container from the DB and re-creating it, is *VERY* not atomic and prone to leaving a corrupted state behind if things go wrong. Moving things into the DB allows us to remove most, but not all, of this - there's still a potential scenario where the c/storage rename fails but the Podman rename succeeds, and we end up with a mismatched state. Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
* bump go module to v3Valentin Rothberg2021-02-22
| | | | | | | | | We missed bumping the go module, so let's do it now :) * Automated go code with github.com/sirkon/go-imports-rename * Manually via `vgrep podman/v2` the rest Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <rothberg@redhat.com>
* Container rename bindingsPaul Holzinger2021-01-15
| | | | | | Add bindings and podman-remote support for container rename. Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <paul.holzinger@web.de>
* Initial implementation of renaming containersMatthew Heon2021-01-14
Basic theory: We remove the container, but *only from the DB*. We leave it in c/storage, we leave the lock allocated, we leave it running (if it is). Then we create an identical container with an altered name, and add that back to the database. Theoretically we now have a renamed container. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't just apply to rename - we can use this to make *any* configuration change to a container that does not alter its container ID. Potential problems are numerous. This process is *THOROUGHLY* non-atomic at present - if you `kill -9` Podman mid-rename things will be in a bad place, for example. Also, we can't rename containers that can't be removed normally - IE, containers with dependencies (pod infra containers, for example). The largest potential improvement will be to move the majority of the work into the DB, with a `RecreateContainer()` method - that will add atomicity, and let us remove the container without worrying about depencies and similar issues. Potential problems: long-running processes that edit the DB and may have an older version of the configuration around. Most notable example is `podman run --rm` - the removal command needed to be manually edited to avoid this one. This begins to get at the heart of me not wanting to do this in the first place... This provides CLI and API implementations for frontend, but no tunnel implementation. It will be added in a future release (just held back for time now - we need this in 3.0 and are running low on time). This is honestly kind of horrifying, but I think it will work. Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <mheon@redhat.com>