🌱 Add uninstall feature test #2453

perdasilva · 2026-01-20T17:16:17Z

Description

Adds initial uninstall feature e2e tests:

cluster extension deletion removes bundle resources from the cluster
cluster extension deletion after service account deletion removed bundle resources from the cluster

Note: this PR also does some low level variable name refactoring to improve readability

Reviewer Checklist

API Go Documentation
Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
Comprehensive Commit Messages
Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

netlify · 2026-01-20T17:16:38Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`babfc30`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/6977bb52f21e8b00086be232
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2453--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds an end-to-end test for verifying that bundle resources are properly removed when a ClusterExtension is uninstalled. The test uses the Gherkin BDD format to define the uninstall scenario.

Changes:

Added new uninstall.feature file with a test scenario that verifies resource cleanup after ClusterExtension deletion

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

codecov · 2026-01-20T17:33:34Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.50%. Comparing base (8167ff8) to head (876fc6b).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             main    #2453    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   69.49%   69.50%            
========================================
  Files         101      101            
  Lines        7754     7891   +137     
========================================
+ Hits         5389     5485    +96     
- Misses       1930     1968    +38     
- Partials      435      438     +3

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`46.94% <ø> (+0.83%)`	⬆️
experimental-e2e	`13.71% <ø> (+0.25%)`	⬆️
unit	`57.07% <ø> (-0.11%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

camilamacedo86

Just I nit otherwise
/approved

perdasilva · 2026-01-21T12:52:22Z

/hold to add another test

perdasilva · 2026-01-21T14:08:32Z

/unhold

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

camilamacedo86 · 2026-01-21T15:10:19Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

+    And resource "clusterrole/testoperator.v1.2.-37mym6pni2xxmai9n7fmhtbn9i348lx7o619rmf3ypio" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrole/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.-37mym6pni2xxmai9n7fmhtbn9i348lx7o619rmf3ypio" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" is eventually not found


I do not think we can have those fixed. Can we not improve that and search by label something like that?

/approved cancel (due new additionals)

I can't see a way around it. If we use a label, all we assert is that there are no clusterroles owned by the ClusterExtension. But, they could still exist on the cluster =/

This brought up something I hadn't thought about: if the names change, then we'll get a false positive. I've updated the Background to ensure the resources exist with those names.

Yep—I don’t think we can do that.

Also, my understanding is that e2e tests should reflect what an end user expects. As a user, I’d expect all owned files to be deleted, while keeping the CRDs to avoid data loss.

Since this is all managed by OLM, do we have any label/annotation we can rely on to identify everything OLM manages for a given CE?

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

pedjak · 2026-01-23T18:57:17Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Feature: Uninstall ClusterExtension
+
+  As an OLM user I would like to uninstall a cluster extension.


perhaps we should extend description, stating what is the expected outcome of such operation?

Suggested change

As an OLM user I would like to uninstall a cluster extension.

As an OLM user I would like to uninstall a cluster extension, removing all resources previously installed/updated through the extension

pedjak · 2026-01-23T19:13:14Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

+    And bundle "test-operator.1.2.0" is installed in version "1.2.0"
+    # Ensure the bundle resources exist before initiating the deletion process and checking
+    # that they no longer exist to avoid false positives (i.e. if they never existed, checking that they don't exist
+    # will succeed)
+    And resource "networkpolicy/test-operator-network-policy" exists
+    And resource "configmap/test-configmap" exists
+    And resource "deployment/test-operator" exists


for better readability and maintainability, I would suggest to:

extend ClusterExtension is rolled out step implementation to check if all resources that are listed as a part of extension really exist on the cluster.

Instead of listing explicitly we can find it out programmatically by (1) listing all objects stated in revision phases, or (2) listing manifests in Helm release secret (by using helm cli)

these resources (GVK + name) can be stored in the test context.

With all these changes, we can collapse above steps and replace them with ClusterExtension is rolled out. It makes the test more readable, because is not in focus of this test.

edit: the comment applies to all lines until the line 40.

pedjak · 2026-01-23T19:16:50Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" exists
+
+  Scenario: Uninstall ClusterExtension
+    When resource "clusterextension/${NAME}" is removed


Reads better if we introduce step ClusterExtension is removed.

pedjak · 2026-01-23T19:16:54Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.-37mym6pni2xxmai9n7fmhtbn9i348lx7o619rmf3ypio" exists
+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" exists
+
+  Scenario: Uninstall ClusterExtension


Be more verbose, e.g. "Removing ClusterExtension triggers the extension uninstall, removing all installed resources eventually.

pedjak · 2026-01-23T19:19:49Z

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature

+    Then resource "networkpolicy/test-operator-network-policy" is eventually not found
+    And resource "configmap/test-configmap" is eventually not found
+    And resource "deployment/test-operator" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrole/testoperator.v1.2.-37mym6pni2xxmai9n7fmhtbn9i348lx7o619rmf3ypio" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrole/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.-37mym6pni2xxmai9n7fmhtbn9i348lx7o619rmf3ypio" is eventually not found
+    And resource "clusterrolebinding/testoperator.v1.2.0-t88i5epjh8oxp4klplhjyrsekwcp92b27w03ayr1ku5" is eventually not found


See comments above. We can now introduce a step that reads like:

All resources owned by extension are removed.

Step implementation is going to fetch from the test context all resources (GVK, name) pairs and iterate over them, asserting that they cannot be found in the cluster.

tmshort · 2026-01-23T21:29:22Z

/approve

Once @pedjak comments are addressed.

openshift-ci · 2026-01-23T21:29:28Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tmshort

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [tmshort]

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

Signed-off-by: Per Goncalves da Silva <pegoncal@redhat.com>

openshift-merge-robot · 2026-01-26T19:07:04Z

PR needs rebase.

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.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:47Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+
+	require.Eventually(godog.T(ctx), func() bool {
+		obj, err := k8sClient("get", kind, name, "-n", sc.namespace, "--ignore-not-found", "-o", "yaml")
+		return err == nil && obj == ""


ResourceEventuallyNotFound checks obj == "", but kubectl get ... --ignore-not-found -o yaml can still return whitespace/newlines (or other benign output) on stdout. This can make the step flaky; compare against strings.TrimSpace(obj) == "" instead of a raw empty string check.

Suggested change

return err == nil && obj == ""

return err == nil && strings.TrimSpace(obj) == ""

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:47Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+	out, err := k8sClient("get", "secrets", "-n", "olmv1-system", "-l", fmt.Sprintf("name=%s", extName), "--field-selector", "type=operatorframework.io/index.v1", "-o", "json")
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	if strings.TrimSpace(out) == "" {
+		return nil, err
+	}


When kubectl get secrets ... returns an empty string, this function returns (nil, err) where err is nil. That propagates a nil Secret to callers and can cause a panic later. Return a non-nil error when no matching release Secret is found.

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:47Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+	var secretList corev1.SecretList
+	if err = json.Unmarshal([]byte(out), &secretList); err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	if len(secretList.Items) != 1 {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	return &secretList.Items[0], nil


This assumes exactly one Secret matches the selector, but Helm release storage typically keeps multiple Secrets (history / revisions). As written, len(secretList.Items) != 1 returns (nil, err) where err is nil, and also makes the lookup fail in normal cases. Select the latest deployed revision (e.g., by Helm labels like version) or otherwise disambiguate, and return a real error if the result set is empty/ambiguous.

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:47Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+func helmReleaseFromSecret(secret *corev1.Secret) (*release.Release, error) {
+	gzReader, err := gzip.NewReader(strings.NewReader(string(secret.Data["chunk"])))
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	defer gzReader.Close()


helmReleaseFromSecret assumes a gzipped JSON-encoded Helm release is stored in secret.Data["chunk"] and reads it via string(...) + strings.NewReader. This is very unlikely to match Helm’s standard release Secret encoding (and will panic if secret is nil). Consider using Helm’s storage/driver decoding logic (or the helm-operator-plugins action client) and validate the expected data key/format; at minimum, guard against secret == nil and missing data keys with a clear error.

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:48Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+	menifests := strings.Split(rel.Manifest, "\n")
+	for _, manifest := range menifests {


Typo in variable name: menifests should be manifests.

Suggested change

menifests := strings.Split(rel.Manifest, "\n")

for _, manifest := range menifests {

manifests := strings.Split(rel.Manifest, "\n")

for _, manifest := range manifests {

Copilot · 2026-01-26T19:15:48Z

test/e2e/steps/steps.go

+func collectHelmReleaseObjects(rel *release.Release) ([]client.Object, error) {
+	objs := []client.Object{}
+	menifests := strings.Split(rel.Manifest, "\n")
+	for _, manifest := range menifests {
+		if manifest == "" {
+			continue
+		}
+		u := &unstructured.Unstructured{}
+		if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(manifest), u); err != nil {
+			return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to unmarshal manifest: %w", err)
+		}


collectHelmReleaseObjects splits rel.Manifest by newline and unmarshals each line independently. This will fail if the manifest contains standard multi-line YAML documents (or if objects aren’t newline-delimited). Prefer using the same manifest parsing approach used elsewhere in the codebase (e.g., internal/operator-controller/rukpak/util.ManifestObjects over the full manifest string), or otherwise split on YAML document boundaries and trim whitespace.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 20, 2026 17:16

openshift-ci bot requested review from bentito and pedjak January 20, 2026 17:16

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 20, 2026 17:16 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva marked this pull request as draft January 20, 2026 18:27

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 20, 2026

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from d7180c9 to 255a7c0 Compare January 20, 2026 18:51

perdasilva marked this pull request as ready for review January 21, 2026 07:28

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 07:28

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 21, 2026

openshift-ci bot requested review from grokspawn and trgeiger January 21, 2026 07:28

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 21, 2026 07:28 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva changed the title ~~🌱 Add unintall feature test~~ 🌱 Add uninstall feature test Jan 21, 2026

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 255a7c0 to 1bd6544 Compare January 21, 2026 09:56

camilamacedo86 reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

camilamacedo86 reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 21, 2026

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 14:08

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 1bd6544 to 1b10dc6 Compare January 21, 2026 14:08

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 21, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 21, 2026 14:08 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 1b10dc6 to 63cb602 Compare January 21, 2026 14:53

camilamacedo86 reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

camilamacedo86 reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 15:52

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 63cb602 to b9c084c Compare January 21, 2026 15:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 21, 2026 15:52 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch 2 times, most recently from 34df40f to 20cf71d Compare January 21, 2026 16:19

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 16:19

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 21, 2026 16:20 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 20cf71d to d82c922 Compare January 21, 2026 16:34

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 21, 2026 16:37

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from d82c922 to 91d65d5 Compare January 21, 2026 16:37

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 21, 2026 16:38 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/features/uninstall.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/e2e/steps/steps.go Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 91d65d5 to 876fc6b Compare January 21, 2026 16:56

pedjak reviewed Jan 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 23, 2026

Add unintall feature test

babfc30

Signed-off-by: Per Goncalves da Silva <pegoncal@redhat.com>

perdasilva force-pushed the uninstall-e2e-test branch from 876fc6b to babfc30 Compare January 26, 2026 19:06

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 19:06

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 26, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of perdasilva January 26, 2026 19:07 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

		@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
		Feature: Uninstall ClusterExtension

		As an OLM user I would like to uninstall a cluster extension.

	return err == nil && obj == ""
	return err == nil && strings.TrimSpace(obj) == ""

		menifests := strings.Split(rel.Manifest, "\n")
		for _, manifest := range menifests {

🌱 Add uninstall feature test #2453

Are you sure you want to change the base?

🌱 Add uninstall feature test #2453

Conversation

perdasilva commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited by pedjak Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

perdasilva commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

perdasilva commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

perdasilva commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited by pedjak

Loading

netlify bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

camilamacedo86 Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading