Change:
}}, metav1.CreateOptions{}) framework.ExpectNoError(err, "creating CR") v, found, err := unstructured.NestedFieldNoCopy(u2.Object, "a") <del> framework.ExpectEqual(found, true, ""a" is defaulted") </del> <ins> if !found { framework.Failf("field `a` should have been defaulted in %+v", u2.Object) } </ins> framework.ExpectEqual(v, "A", ""a" is defaulted to "A"") // Deleting default for a, adding default "B" for b and waiting for the CR to get defaulted on read for b

Discussion:
The tests are full of assertions which compare a boolean against true or false, often without any additional explanation. When those assertions fail, the error message is useless for understanding what went wrong, often just saying: Including an explanation is better, but then we still have the distracting noise about the comparison: All of those assertions should be replace with . Such locations can be found by grepping: UPDATE (2024-08-26): in cases where such an if check is not possible (typically in combination with or ), should be used instead of . They emit only the explanation given to them, without including the noise above. The Ginkgo linter (enabled in golangci-lint) points that out. Some progress has been made in the meantime: v1.23.0: 250 v1.24.0-beta.0: 177 However, we were down to 175 at some point, so the number is going back up. Example: Some other places compare values. Those should be replaced with a comparison assertion. Example: It makes sense to split this work into individual PRs, one per OWNERS file under test/e2e. Here's a list of directories: [ ] test/e2e/apimachinery [x] test/e2e/apps: [x] test/e2e/auth [x] test/e2e/autoscaling: [x] test/e2e/cloud/gcp [x] test/e2e/cloud [x] test/e2e/common/network [x] test/e2e/common/node: [x] test/e2e/common/storage: [x] test/e2e/framework: [x] test/e2e/framework/providers/vsphere [x] test/e2e/framework/volume [x] test/e2e/instrumentation/logging [x] test/e2e/instrumentation: [x] test/e2e/kubectl [x] test/e2e/lifecycle [x] test/e2e/node: [x] test/e2e/scheduling: [x] test/e2e/storage: (prior PR: ) [x] test/e2e/testing-manifests/storage-csi [x] test/e2e/upgrades/apps: [x] test/e2e/windows: , When creating a PR, use as title. Use one commit per PR, squash when addressing feedback.

Unless noted otherwise, will work on PRs. Help may be welcome. /sig testing /help Better output for developers when tests fail.
This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor. Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions: Why are we solving this issue? To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points? Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry? How can the assignee reach out to you for help? For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see and ensure that they are met. If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed by commenting with the command. <detailsIn response to : ### What would you like to be ? Example: Some other places compare values. Those should be replaced with a comparison assertion. Example: /sig testing /help </details
/good-first-issue
This request has been marked as suitable for new contributors. Please ensure that the issue body includes answers to the following questions: Why are we solving this issue? To address this issue, are there any code changes? If there are code changes, what needs to be done in the code and what places can the assignee treat as reference points? Does this issue have zero to low barrier of entry? How can the assignee reach out to you for help? For more details on the requirements of such an issue, please see and ensure that they are met. If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed by commenting with the command. <detailsIn response to : /good-first-issue </details
/triage accepted
I would like to take this up as my first issue
/assign
I would like to take up this issue as my first issue
Hello I am already working on this issue , can you please take some other issue ?
Okay sure ,how do I un assign myself from this issue?
I don't think you are assigned to this issue.
Oh okay
Hey as discussed in pr I am assuming that you are only working for tests under area.

also finished the work on , see
and only one PR is to be made for the correction under test/e2e/storage/, so how can we distribute the task and also make only single PR. Or can we make multiple PR's
I have a TODO list to the issue description. I'll try to keep that up-to-date with what has been done and who is working on it.
you can continue with in
what is to be changed in this case !
can you inform on which directory you are working.
Currently working on apimachinery
Nothing, just leave it as-is.
But that isn't under - before starting somewhere else, please coordinate with
test/e2e/instrumentation/logging don't have any cases like "Expect.Equal([^,], *(true|false)", so I think it should be removed from tasks to do.
I am thinking that the output should be if !ok { framework.Failf(uexec.ExitError) } in this case, am I thinking reasonable here.
isn't valid Go. The first parameter must be a format string. The code checks whether err is a : Therefore the change should be:
Why don't we just add extra explanation into calls like for easy investigation? I might miss some point.
You have to consider the complete output when that case fails. Gomega will write print the actual value and the expected value, then in addition you get the same information in the custom message. Printing just the custom failure message is shorter and more readable, in particular for a comparison of booleans. For a comparison of integers I see two solutions: ExpectEqual with a fixed message that just explains what is being compared. An if check with Failf where the message includes the actual value. The later seems more useful when the expected value is zero because that value doesn't need to be printed when its obvious.
I am getting difficulty in figuring out what should be output here, what should the appropriate output here. Also what steps you took in knowing so, it would help to improve my understanding.
The "ok" value is the result of checking for a specific key in a map. What a developer therefore wants to know when that check fails is: what was the key what's in the map Both can be included in:
can I work for the section :- test/e2e/scheduling ?

And there was only one changes needed for test/e2e/node which I did but my PR was closed as it only contains trivial edits. That was my first PR, so can you please guide me further?
/assign I'll try to coordinate the work, but won't create PRs myself. I ticked of line items which had no remaining work. feel free to start working on .
I replied there and also suggested an improvement. For those following this issue: try to include more information than before in the error message when the assertion fails. Then it is more obvious to the reviewer that the change is useful without having to read this issue. Examples:
Another tip: don't just reference this issue as explanation for the PR. Reviewers are busy, they won't necessarily invest the time and follow the link to understand what the PR is about. Instead, take the first sentence from this issue and adapt it as needed to the specific changes in the code.
can I start working on test/e2e/common/storage ?
Okay.
for test/e2e/network/netpol , there are already message associated with all of the cases, for example :- So should I just change all of them to ? And same for all the cases in test/e2e/network except these two cases : framework.ExpectEqual(netutils.I sIPv4String(internalIPs[0]) != netutils.IsIPv4String(internalIPs[1]), true) framework.ExpectEqual(netutils.IsIPv4String(p.Status.PodIPs[0].IP) != netutils.IsIPv4String(p.Status.PodIPs[1].IP), true )
Yes.
Okay then I will be working on and
It might make sense to combine them in a single PR, depending on how many changes there are - just use common sense.
IMO : this will never fail because whether err will be nil or it will exist. So, we don't need to change this code. What I had done in this case was :
Note that that is redundant (= not wrong, just not needed). I later clarified that in
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen </details
Hi! I've created a PR to address the tests in e2e/apps It is my first PR so hopefully, everything is ok. Thanks a lot!
Hi can I take test/e2e/common/node?
Yes, please do.

Have we considered / helpers that can skip the comparison output? - is noisy and makes it harder to skim tests, especially given that it's a pretty commonly required pattern.
No, we haven't. Do you find it noisy because it's two lines instead of one? I don't have a problem with that. It seems to be a common approach in unit tests and I find it easy to read, partly because it matches how production code would be written.
It becomes three, plus extra indention - but more importantly stands out in a series of expectations. This draws extra scrutiny to those lines. many unit tests using testify would use to express this because of that.
Isn't that a good thing? is bad without any or no useful extra explanation. The if check makes it obvious that a good failure message is needed. Does print less useless boilerplate code than Gomega? We could use that with Ginkgo (), but then we still need to ensure that the optional explanation is useful.
xref
Hi can I take test/e2e/auth?
for test/e2e/auth, for example : Should I just change it to ?
feel free to work on test/e2e/auth. This one particular example is a bit different: here we are comparing string values, and for those it makes sense to print the actual value because the failure message then adds information. I would leave that one as it is.
OK. test/e2e/auth doesn't need replacing. I : <img width="731" alt="Screen Shot 2022-05-30 at 9 12 59 PM" src="https://user-"There are a lot of positions that need to be modified in . I'll take test/e2e/apps.
That looks like a good candidate. Please go for it. When you need to make up new failure messages, try to think about what information may be useful to have and add that. Then the resulting PR is clearly better than the status quo.
Hi can you please assign me a directory. I want to give it a try. Thanks,
Hi I already posted a PR for e2e/apps some days ago in this issue: If it is fine I'd love to proceed with that. Just to avoid us repeating work.
sorry for not noticing the overlap sooner. Let's go with the older PR.

you can take over test/e2e/storage from There is an incomplete PR for it in You can check out that branch, fix it and submit a new PR, or start from scratch.
it looks like is not active anymore. I've remove him from the todo list and you instead for test/e2e/common/storage.
OK. Thank you. Is there an incomplete PR for .
I in and it returns 0. What should I do?
needs modifying. <img width="1440" alt="Screen Shot 2022-05-31 at 2 40 29 PM" src="https://user-"Can I work on it?
Indeed, did test/e2e/common/storage in You can work on test/e2e/windows.
OK. I'm working on it currently.
Sure, I will look into it. Thanks,
: do you want to continue with test/e2e/apimachinery?
Yes. There's an older PR:
Hi is there anything I could take over?
Hey I am not sure how updated the list is, but I am available to help. Is there any part I could start or continue?
sorry for the late reply. I had (and still have) some big changes for the E2E tests going and had put this on the backseat for a while. If you are interested, how about doing test/e2e/apimachinery and test/e2e/autoscaling? Some work was done on the latter, but there are still several calls (again?).
Sure, I can take that!
Hey I'd also like to contribute on this issue. Is there anything I could take over?
feel free to take my part:
Perfect, then I will take part
Hi :smile: , I would like to contribute to this issue, there is anything that I could do?
I was reluctant to start new work on this because I had one big PR pending that touched a lot of test code (PR ), but that has been merged. you are taking test/e2e/autoscaling, right? test/e2e/apimachinery? you can do test/e2e/apps. That leave test/e2e_node in case someone wants to continue.
yes e2e/autoscaling. I had some trouble to get the tests going initially, but seems fine now!
Hi, Can I do something to contribute to this issue?

you could work on test/e2e_node.
Ok, I will start work on test/e2e_node thanks!
Hi , I would like to contribute. Is there anything I could take over?
thanks for your interest, but right now everything seems to be covered.
Hi Thanks. I am searching for "good-first-issue", feel free to assign one to me. I am exploring api-machinery, but happy to contribute in other sig as well.
maybe you can take a look at if you have some time :)
Hi , There is anything that I could do to contribute with this issue?
Hi , I was looking and found the test/e2e/apimachinery without doing it and only then did I see that it was already assigned if this is a problem just refuse my pr and if you have something else to do let me know.
The remaining work will probably finished in , so there isn't anything else to do. If someone wants to investigate writing a linter for this, then this would be a cool science project - not easy, though. I would start with looking at for this. It has the advantage that it is supported indirectly in golangci-lint ().
Hello I would like to try to do a liter for it. It will be a cool project whit a lot of opportunities to learn. There will be a separate issue for the linter or we continue the discussion here?
Let's continue here.
I ended up creating a separate issue for linter ideas: let's continue there.
Ok!
New tests have been again with this anti-pattern since the last time that I checked. It's clear that without a linter, we'll not get rid of it. So let's focus on that first.
is this issue still open
Yes, this is still open. Current status as of v1.28.0-rc.0: Two calls are in , the rest are in . We have such a linter now, with ginkgolinter in golangci-lint and (soon) the ability to prevent usage of , so it makes sense to continue with removing those calls. do you want to prepare one PR for all remaining calls? I think one PR is enough, no need to split it up.
also has it, which was intentional. I'm undecided whether that should be replaced.

Several of those calls are being touched in , let's wait for that PR to be merged before doing any further work.
no longer finds anything. We might be done... :tada: But not quite. What we have left now is checking a boolean via or , which has the same problem. In some cases, there is an extra message (which is still noisy, see ), in other cases there isn't even that (which makes the failure message fairly useless). We can and should replace some of those calls with the pattern.
is almost resolved. My work-in-progress branch forbids the usage of in favor of the new or plain Go. In some cases, moving the Go code that returns true/false into a matcher might be the best solution because that allows dumping the full actual value that was being checked. Here are the remaining issues: <details</detailsDoes anybody want to work on those?
I would love to!
: please go ahead. Assign PRs to me when you create them. Let's start with a few of those calls initially, do a round of reviews, then continue. /assign
You will have to start with my branch, current master doesn't have gomega with thew new API yet.
I'm starting new to kubernetes. Is there anything easy that I could do ?
Hey Is there anything left I can help you with in this issue ?
Thanks for your interest. There's not much to be done at the moment, though.
Should this be closed?
Oh wow! Looks like we are indeed done. Thanks everyone. /close
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : Oh wow! Looks like we are indeed done. Thanks everyone. </details