Skip to content

Run tests in parallel#2280

Draft
skitt wants to merge 1 commit intosubmariner-io:develfrom
skitt:parallel-ginkgo
Draft

Run tests in parallel#2280
skitt wants to merge 1 commit intosubmariner-io:develfrom
skitt:parallel-ginkgo

Conversation

@skitt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@skitt skitt commented Feb 4, 2026

This uses the Ginkgo driver directly to allow running the tests in parallel.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Upgraded testing infrastructure to use Ginkgo v2 runner for more efficient test execution and improved coverage profiling.

@skitt skitt added the unit-projects Run unit tests in consuming projects label Feb 4, 2026
@submariner-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 Created branch: z_pr2280/skitt/parallel-ginkgo

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

  • 🔍 Trigger a full review

Walkthrough

The change migrates unit test execution in the build script from go test to Ginkgo v2 runner while maintaining coverage and test report generation capabilities.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Test Execution Refactoring
scripts/shared/unit_test.sh
Replaces go test invocation with Ginkgo 2 runner, updates flag syntax from -race to --race, and adjusts coverage reporting to use the new profile format (unit.coverprofile) with go tool cover -func.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Suggested reviewers

  • Oats87
  • sridhargaddam
  • tpantelis
  • vthapar

Important

Pre-merge checks failed

Please resolve all errors before merging. Addressing warnings is optional.

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Actionable Comments Resolved ❓ Inconclusive Unable to verify custom check - shell commands executed in user message are not accessible to me. Please provide the verification output or file content directly. Provide the actual content of scripts/shared/unit_test.sh or the verification output to assess the comment update.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title 'Run tests in parallel' directly matches the PR's stated objective to use Ginkgo driver for parallel test execution, clearly summarizing the main change.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@scripts/shared/unit_test.sh`:
- Around line 47-48: Update the stale comment that currently mentions "go test"
to accurately reference the test runner in use ("ginkgo") in
scripts/shared/unit_test.sh; locate the comment block around the earlier note
about reporting the test command's exit status and replace "go test" with
"ginkgo" (and optionally mention coverage/profile behavior specific to ginkgo)
so future editors are not misled by the incorrect test runner name.

Comment thread scripts/shared/unit_test.sh Outdated
Comment on lines 47 to 48
# It's important that the `go test` command's exit status is reported from this () block.
# Can't be one command (with -cover). Need detailed -coverprofile for Sonar and summary to console.
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Update the stale go test comment.

Line 47 now refers to go test, but the command is ginkgo. This can mislead future edits.

🔧 Proposed fix
-        # It's important that the `go test` command's exit status is reported from this () block.
-        # Can't be one command (with -cover). Need detailed -coverprofile for Sonar and summary to console.
+        # It's important that the `ginkgo` command's exit status is reported from this () block.
+        # Can't be one command (with -cover). Need detailed -coverprofile for Sonar and summary to console.
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
# It's important that the `go test` command's exit status is reported from this () block.
# Can't be one command (with -cover). Need detailed -coverprofile for Sonar and summary to console.
# It's important that the `ginkgo` command's exit status is reported from this () block.
# Can't be one command (with -cover). Need detailed -coverprofile for Sonar and summary to console.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In `@scripts/shared/unit_test.sh` around lines 47 - 48, Update the stale comment
that currently mentions "go test" to accurately reference the test runner in use
("ginkgo") in scripts/shared/unit_test.sh; locate the comment block around the
earlier note about reporting the test command's exit status and replace "go
test" with "ginkgo" (and optionally mention coverage/profile behavior specific
to ginkgo) so future editors are not misled by the incorrect test runner name.

@skitt skitt marked this pull request as draft February 4, 2026 14:53
This uses the Ginkgo driver directly to allow running the tests in
parallel.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Kitt <skitt@redhat.com>
@tpantelis
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What is the motivation for running unit tests is parallel, especially at this point? This will likely cause issues in some test suites that modify shared globals.

@skitt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

skitt commented Feb 4, 2026

What is the motivation for running unit tests is parallel, especially at this point? This will likely cause issues in some test suites that modify shared globals.

This is just a draft to measure the impact. The motivation is to reduce the time spent waiting for tests (but it would be more useful on e2e).

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further
activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further
activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions Bot commented Apr 1, 2026

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further
activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale label Apr 1, 2026
@dfarrell07 dfarrell07 removed the stale label Apr 7, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further
activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

unit-projects Run unit tests in consuming projects

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants