API Coverage: Missing coverage for EnvFrom

[dgerd]

In what area(s)?

/area API

/area autoscale
/area build
/area monitoring
/area networking
/area test-and-release

Describe the feature

This issue is to add end to end test coverage the exercises the EnvFrom path and move the existing EnvPropagation conformance test to e2e tests as it requires the Kubernetes client to run. See comments below for more details.

[tzununbekov]

wanted to work on this one, but isn't this covered in envvars and envpropagation tests?

[dgerd]

I created this issue based on output from our API Coverage Webhook (https://prow.knative.dev/?job=ci-knative-serving-webhook-apicoverage)

• EnvVars test covers the environment variables that are added by the system which is separate from this. See https://github.com/knative/serving/blob/master/docs/runtime-contract.md#process

• EnvPropagation covers the valueFrom case, but does not cover the EnvFrom input case. See https://prow.knative.dev/?job=ci-knative-serving-webhook-apicoverage.

Looking at this closer now,

• There are 2 fields missing coverage from EnvVarSource, but these should have been blocked by the webhook when ConfigMaps and Secrets were enabled as they relate to exposing Pod concepts rather than ConfigMaps and Secrets. Disallowing the fieldRef and resourceFieldRef fields will be fixed as part of Copy Kubernetes objects in webhook #3424.

• EnvPropagation is using the KubeClient as part of the Conformance test which needs to be fixed. This should also ideally be moved back into e2e tests rather than conformance.

I will update the title and description above, but what I think needs to be done here is:

1. Move EnvPropagation to e2e test suite instead of conformance
2. Create a new test that uses envFrom to populate environment variables in a container from a ConfigMap/Secret. (Note: This is a low priority as there is discussion on removing this functionality in the next iteration of our API due to inconsistent update behavior.)

[mattmoor]

Moving what's left here to 0.7.

I believe the compromise @dgerd and I arrived at was to make these tests set things up outside of the test itself. I'd recommend adding a secret / configmap to test/config, which gets ko apply'd.

[dgerd]

I actually created two new issues here:

#3985
#3984

Lets go ahead and close this one and use the other two. I will add them to 0.7.