Change:
} func TestActiveReplicaSetsFiltering(t *testing.T) { <del> var replicaSets []*apps.ReplicaSet replicaSets = append(replicaSets, newReplicaSet("zero", 0)) replicaSets = append(replicaSets, nil) replicaSets = append(replicaSets, newReplicaSet("foo", 1)) replicaSets = append(replicaSets, newReplicaSet("bar", 2)) expectedNames := sets.NewString() for _, rs := range replicaSets[2:] { expectedNames.Insert(rs.Name) } got := FilterActiveReplicaSets(replicaSets) gotNames := sets.NewString() for _, rs := range got { gotNames.Insert(rs.Name) </del> <ins> rsUuid := uuid.NewUUID() tests := []struct { name            string replicaSets     []*apps.ReplicaSet wantReplicaSets []*apps.ReplicaSet }{ { name: "Filters active replica sets", replicaSets: []*apps.ReplicaSet{ newReplicaSet("zero", 0, rsUuid), nil, newReplicaSet("foo", 1, rsUuid), newReplicaSet("bar", 2, rsUuid), }, wantReplicaSets: []*apps.ReplicaSet{ newReplicaSet("foo", 1, rsUuid), newReplicaSet("bar", 2, rsUuid), }, }, </ins> } <del> if diff := cmp.Diff(expectedNames.List(), gotNames.List()); diff != "" { t.Errorf("Active replica set names (-want,+got):n%s", diff) </del> <ins> for _, test := range tests { t.Run(test.name, func(t *testing.T) { gotReplicaSets := FilterActiveReplicaSets(test.replicaSets) if diff := cmp.Diff(test.wantReplicaSets, gotReplicaSets); diff != "" { t.Errorf("Active replica set names (-want,+got):n%s", diff) } }) </ins> } }

Discussion:
During implementation of KEP 3393 (PodReplacementPolicy for Jobs) we found that the unit tests of do not follow common patterns established in k/k. 1) The tests are not written using table driven design (). 2) The tests use rather than . This probably should be done as two separate PRs but wanted to highlight some areas that could use some cleanup. Not using means that we don't see diffs in the unit tests that makes this difficult. And not using table driven tests makes it difficult to add new test cases as it usually is brought up during review that we should use a table-driven test but the entire file does not obey this format.
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig apps /kind cleanup /help /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 : /sig apps /kind cleanup /help /good-first-issue Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
I'd like to work on it /assign
I'd also like to make some contributions. /assign
Looks like this need two PRs. tests are not written using table driven design (). tests use Differences rather than Cmp.Diff. I think I can work on the 2nd one and leave the 1st one to you.

Sounds good?
By looking through the , I found the main function to comapre the results have already used cmp.Diff. Can you elaborate more on which part you expect to use cmp.Diff? func verifyDeletedAndPatchedPods(t testing.T, client fake.Clientset, wantDeletedPodNames, wantPatchedPodNames sets.String) { t.Helper() deletedPodNames := getDeletedPodNames(client) if diff := cmp.Diff(wantDeletedPodNames, deletedPodNames); diff != "" { t.Errorf("Deleted pod names (-want,+got):n%s", diff) } patchedPodNames := getPatchedPodNames(client) if diff := cmp.Diff(wantPatchedPodNames, patchedPodNames); diff != "" { t.Errorf("Patched pod names (-want,+got):n%s", diff) } }
I am really sorry about this. Too much multitasking!! I meant not
Hey ! Sorry, I didn't see this before. No problem at all, but consider that one change depends on the other, and since my task implies a big refactor, there might be conflicts when merging your PR... That's why I see two possible scenarios happening: Your PR gets merged before I raise mine: Then fine, I'll rebase your changes and adapt my code Mine is ready before yours is merged: In this case, I propose you commit your changes to my PR. Both of us will appear as coauthors of the change Getting a PR merged in the Kubernetes project takes quite some time (trust me, I talk by experience and can confirm ) WDYT?
Let's see how it goes. We can always rebase the code change to adapt new.
btw, did you already begin to work on task 1? If not, I may just go ahead and work on it right away since I have already dig into it.
yes, I already started And If you ask me, better to keep it this way so we both have an opportunity to have a contribution
cool. Sounds good.
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
Hi if this issue needs to be worked on any further, please assign me for the same.
has a PR up that will solve the second part of this issue.