OCPQE-26161,OCPBUGS-46552: Update labels to distinguish different tests

[sunzhaohua2]

Update labels based on doc

• QE run test in 2 jobs, one is non-disruptive, one is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases to make sure these cases are not run in parallel.
• In order to select feature related cases in different repos, added capi/mapi/autoscaler/machine-health-checks/machine-approver/ccm labels.
• Added qe-only/dev-only label to make sure some cases can only run in qe or dev account.
• I didn't update Makefile to LEVEL0&&!qe-only as now only few LEVEL0 cases, and we have a total of 41 cases in repo, so I think keep the status quo is ok, in future we have more cases, then we change it to run only LEVEL0. If you think it's better to change to LEVEL0, I'm also ok with that.

@JoelSpeed @shellyyang1989 @huali9 @miyadav PTAL

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sunzhaohua2: This pull request references OCPQE-26161 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 "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

• The qe job mainly selects cases to execute based on whether the case is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases.
• In order to distinguish between capi cases and mapi cases, I changed LabelMachines to LabelMAPI.
• Add LabelMachineApprover to select cases to execute based on labels in the rebase regression jobs.

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sunzhaohua2: This pull request references OCPQE-26161 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 "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Update labels based on doc

• QE run test in 2 jobs, one is non-disruptive, one is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases to make sure these cases are not run in parallel.
• In order to select feature related cases in different repos, added capi/mapi/autoscaler/machine-health-checks/machine-approver/ccm labels.
• Added qe-only/dev-only label to make sure some cases can only run in qe or dev account.
• I didn't update Makefile to LEVEL0&&!qe-only as now only few LEVEL0 cases, and we have a total of 41 cases in repo, so I think keep the status quo is ok, in future we have more cases, then we change it to run only LEVEL0. If you think it's better to change to LEVEL0, I'm also ok with that.

@JoelSpeed @shellyyang1989 @huali9 @miyadav PTAL

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.

[miyadav]

Nit pick - can we arrange alphabetically for easy read -

`LabelAutoscaler          = ginkgo.Label("autoscaler")
LabelCAPI                = ginkgo.Label("capi")
LabelCCM                 = ginkgo.Label("ccm")
LabelDevOnly             = ginkgo.Label("dev-only")
LabelDisruptive          = ginkgo.Label("disruptive")
LabelLEVEL0              = ginkgo.Label("LEVEL0")
LabelMAPI                = ginkgo.Label("mapi")
LabelMachineApprover     = ginkgo.Label("machine-approver")
LabelMachineHealthChecks = ginkgo.Label("machine-health-checks")
LabelPeriodic            = ginkgo.Label("periodic")
LabelQEOnly              = ginkgo.Label("qe-only")
`

[JoelSpeed]

Nit, probably just machine-health-check, I think that would be consistent

[JoelSpeed]

Could we get a godoc on each field to show what each means. Most are fairly self explanatory but level0 for example, is not

[huali9]

LGTM
Thank you Zhaohua!

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sunzhaohua2: This pull request references OCPQE-26161 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 "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-46552, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @sunzhaohua2

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Update labels based on doc

• QE run test in 2 jobs, one is non-disruptive, one is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases to make sure these cases are not run in parallel.
• In order to select feature related cases in different repos, added capi/mapi/autoscaler/machine-health-checks/machine-approver/ccm labels.
• Added qe-only/dev-only label to make sure some cases can only run in qe or dev account.
• I didn't update Makefile to LEVEL0&&!qe-only as now only few LEVEL0 cases, and we have a total of 41 cases in repo, so I think keep the status quo is ok, in future we have more cases, then we change it to run only LEVEL0. If you think it's better to change to LEVEL0, I'm also ok with that.

@JoelSpeed @shellyyang1989 @huali9 @miyadav PTAL

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.

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-ci-robot: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: sunzhaohua2.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

@sunzhaohua2: This pull request references OCPQE-26161 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 "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-46552, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @sunzhaohua2

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Update labels based on doc

• QE run test in 2 jobs, one is non-disruptive, one is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases to make sure these cases are not run in parallel.
• In order to select feature related cases in different repos, added capi/mapi/autoscaler/machine-health-checks/machine-approver/ccm labels.
• Added qe-only/dev-only label to make sure some cases can only run in qe or dev account.
• I didn't update Makefile to LEVEL0&&!qe-only as now only few LEVEL0 cases, and we have a total of 41 cases in repo, so I think keep the status quo is ok, in future we have more cases, then we change it to run only LEVEL0. If you think it's better to change to LEVEL0, I'm also ok with that.

@JoelSpeed @shellyyang1989 @huali9 @miyadav PTAL

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.

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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[JoelSpeed]

/approve
/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed

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 [JoelSpeed]

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

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 84b1711 and 2 for PR HEAD eac728c in total

[openshift-ci]

@sunzhaohua2: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-openstack-operator	eac728c	link	false	/test e2e-openstack-operator

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sunzhaohua2: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-46552: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/cluster-api-actuator-pkg#344

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-46552 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Update labels based on doc

• QE run test in 2 jobs, one is non-disruptive, one is disruptive, so added disruptive labels to some cases to make sure these cases are not run in parallel.
• In order to select feature related cases in different repos, added capi/mapi/autoscaler/machine-health-checks/machine-approver/ccm labels.
• Added qe-only/dev-only label to make sure some cases can only run in qe or dev account.
• I didn't update Makefile to LEVEL0&&!qe-only as now only few LEVEL0 cases, and we have a total of 41 cases in repo, so I think keep the status quo is ok, in future we have more cases, then we change it to run only LEVEL0. If you think it's better to change to LEVEL0, I'm also ok with that.

@JoelSpeed @shellyyang1989 @huali9 @miyadav PTAL

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.