fix: skip assertions for packages-x86 during arm64 builds

[frantjc]

Change description

Fix a variable name bug in the goss package assertions template where arch was used instead of the correct variable ARCH. This caused the packages-x86 assertions to not be properly skipped during arm64 builds, potentially resulting in false failures when running goss validation on arm64 machines.

• Is this change including a new Provider or a new OS? (y/n) n
• If yes, has the Provider/OS matrix been updated in the readme? (y/n) ____
• If adding a new provider, are you a representative of that provider? (y/n) ____

Related issues

Additional context

Relevant results from a failure without this change when running make build-ami-ubuntu-2404-arm64 despite these two packages being deliberately excluded:

{
    "results": [
        # ...
        {
            "duration": 25444214,
            "err": null,
            "expected": [
                "true"
            ],
            "found": [
                "false"
            ],
            "human": "Expected\n    \u003cbool\u003e: false\nto equal\n    \u003cbool\u003e: true",
            "meta": null,
            "property": "installed",
            "resource-id": "linux-tools-virtual",
            "resource-type": "Package",
            "result": 1,
            "skipped": false,
            "successful": false,
            "summary-line": "Package: linux-tools-virtual: installed:\nExpected\n    \u003cbool\u003e: false\nto equal\n    \u003cbool\u003e: true",
            "test-type": 0,
            "title": ""
        },
        # ...
        {
            "duration": 57202398,
            "err": null,
            "expected": [
                "true"
            ],
            "found": [
                "false"
            ],
            "human": "Expected\n    \u003cbool\u003e: false\nto equal\n    \u003cbool\u003e: true",
            "meta": null,
            "property": "installed",
            "resource-id": "linux-cloud-tools-virtual",
            "resource-type": "Package",
            "result": 1,
            "skipped": false,
            "successful": false,
            "summary-line": "Package: linux-cloud-tools-virtual: installed:\nExpected\n    \u003cbool\u003e: false\nto equal\n    \u003cbool\u003e: true",
            "test-type": 0,
            "title": ""
        },
        # ...
    ],
    "summary": {
        "failed-count": 2,
        "skipped-count": 0,
        "summary-line": "Count: 64, Failed: 2, Skipped: 0, Duration: 2.088s",
        "test-count": 64,
        "total-duration": 2088295529
    }
}

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: frantjc / name: Alex Logsdon (798098d)

[kubernetes-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign drew-viles for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[kubernetes-prow]

Welcome @frantjc!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/image-builder 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/image-builder has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[kubernetes-prow]

Hi @frantjc. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[mboersma]

/ok-to-test

[frantjc]

@mboersma I've fixed the failing CI check - tl;dr there seems to be quite a healthy mix of .Vars.arch and .Vars.ARCH between the linux and windows packer configs. I opted to have CI reflect that rather than trying to unify, which looked a tad hairy.