Code change:
The issue is to follow up discussions in : running conformance test with the commonly used tool, sonobuoy, failed because the tool's test runner is lack of permission towards . The original issue was resolved by changing the e2e (conformance) test of to an integration test. Several problems remained: privilege requirement in is outdated. discovery is one of the least-privileged permissions, and is expected to be granted to every authenticated user but is not actually. the result returned by should be part of conformance? 1st and 2nd are straightforward to fix, not sure about 3rd, should we add a separate test or add a verification step in existing one like With the fix of 2nd, e2e for should no longer fail with any test runner. cc - should be reflect the accurate permission requirement discovery permission should be granted to all authenticated users. test should check the result returned by . Inapplicable No response <details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
/sig api-machinery /sig testing
I agree with this. We have conformance tests around things like webhooks and custom resource definitions. I'd recommend rephrasing that as "limits itself to capabilities exposed via APIs (e.g., does not require root on nodes, access to raw network interfaces) and does not require write access to system namespaces (like kube-system)" I'm not sure I agree with this. No binaries Kubernetes provides (that I'm aware of) and nothing in client-go needs to make use of root discovery information. I'd be very slow to expand endpoints included in . Unless we have compelling reasons for people to use and rely on this data, I would lean towards no.
can we fix 1 , that seems that everybody agree and looks like the most clear one? the other sound more contentious
thanks for your comments. Created for 1 and closed the other one.
Thanks all. Agree on this outcome.
/triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: Expect(badEvents).NotTo(BeNumerically(">", int(math.Floor(0.01*float64(totalPods))))) }) } <del> type Scalability struct { skip          bool totalPods     int podsPerMinion int rcsPerThread  int } scalabilityTests := []Scalability{ {totalPods: 500, podsPerMinion: 10, rcsPerThread: 5, skip: true}, {totalPods: 500, podsPerMinion: 10, rcsPerThread: 25, skip: true}, } for _, testArg := range scalabilityTests { // # of threads calibrate to totalPods threads := (testArg.totalPods / (testArg.podsPerMinion * testArg.rcsPerThread)) name := fmt.Sprintf( "should be able to launch %v pods, %v per minion, in %v rcs/thread.", testArg.totalPods, testArg.podsPerMinion, testArg.rcsPerThread) if testArg.skip { name = "[Skipped] " + name } itArg := testArg It(name, func() { podsLaunched := 0 var wg sync.WaitGroup wg.Add(threads) // Create queue of pending requests on the api server. for i := 0; i < threads; i++ { go func() { defer wg.Done() for i := 0; i < itArg.rcsPerThread; i++ { name := "my-short-lived-pod" + string(util.NewUUID()) n := itArg.podsPerMinion * minionCount expectNoError(RunRC(c, name, ns, "gcr.io/google_containers/pause:go", n)) podsLaunched += n Logf("Launched %v pods so far...", podsLaunched) err := DeleteRC(c, ns, name) expectNoError(err) } }() } // Wait for all the pods from all the RC's to return. wg.Wait() Logf("%v pods out of %v launched", podsLaunched, itArg.totalPods) }) } </del> })