Standardize how to Run E2E tests in the OCP Test Infrastructure

[dumb0002]

This PR standardize the procedure of how to run e2e tests in a OCP cluster.

Key changes:

• New test/e2e/ocp-test.sh targeting tests to be run in a OCP cluster
• New ocp-e2e-full Makefile target with environment variable support
• Workflow passes NAMESPACE, INST, ISC, LC, RS to test script via step outputs
• Test script validates required environment variables and uses workflow-created objects

cc: @diegocastanibm

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Standardizes how OpenShift (OCP) E2E tests are executed by introducing a dedicated test script, a Makefile entrypoint, and wiring the OpenShift CI workflow to run the script using workflow-created test objects.

Changes:

• Added test/e2e/ocp-test.sh to run launcher-based E2E scenarios against an OpenShift cluster using pre-created objects.
• Added a Makefile target intended to run the full OCP E2E suite with configurable env vars.
• Updated the OpenShift CI workflow to pass object names via step outputs and invoke the Makefile target.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

File	Description
test/e2e/ocp-test.sh	New OCP-focused E2E runner script that reuses workflow-created namespace and test objects.
Makefile	Adds an OCP E2E target and env var configuration for running the new script.
.github/workflows/ci-e2e-openshift.yaml	Adds a step to run the OCP E2E suite and passes object identifiers via step outputs.

[MikeSpreitzer]

See also #336 and #337

[diegocastanibm]

SO the PR is clear to me. My only concern is that @MikeSpreitzer mentioned in the meeting that he would like to use this script for local testing. As it is at this moment, the script cannot run locally. It depends on environment variables and pre-existing test objects that are created by earlier workflow steps. In contrast, test/e2e/run.sh is fully self-contained. If @MikeSpreitzer wants to use it locally, we can add a setup section so ocp-test.sh can be run independently against a local/remote cluster.

Other than that, LGTM. I just want to know what @MikeSpreitzer thinks about this

[diegocastanibm]

then this script depends on pre-existing test objects...

[MikeSpreitzer]

We want a script to run instead of, not in addition to, the scripting currently in that workflow

[dumb0002]

We want a script to run instead of, not in addition to, the scripting currently in that workflow

@MikeSpreitzer (cc: @diegocastanibm), I suggest for us to break down everything into two scripts:
    a) deploy_fma_infra.sh:  a script that deploys the dual-pod controller, requester, launcher pods, etc. (refractoring the scripting currently in the workflow)
    b) deploy_fma_e2e_tests.sh: a script to deploy the test scenarios (i.e., current script in this PR)

What are your thoughts on this?

[MikeSpreitzer]

 b) deploy_fma_e2e_tests.sh: a script to deploy the test scenarios (i.e., current script in this PR)

You mean a script to run the E2E test suite, right?

[dumb0002]

 b) deploy_fma_e2e_tests.sh: a script to deploy the test scenarios (i.e., current script in this PR)

You mean a script to run the E2E test suite, right?

@MikeSpreitzer, yes! Similar to the script in this PR.

[MikeSpreitzer]

 a) deploy_fma_infra.sh:  a script that deploys the dual-pod controller, requester, launcher pods, etc. (refractoring the scripting currently in the workflow)

That's just "deploy FMA", right? Adding the word "infra[structure]" is confusing to me. I think that you might be talking about the Kubernetes cluster and its users and their authorizations and other configuration.

[dumb0002]

 a) deploy_fma_infra.sh:  a script that deploys the dual-pod controller, requester, launcher pods, etc. (refractoring the scripting currently in the workflow)

That's just "deploy FMA", right? Adding the word "infra[structure]" is confusing to me. I think that you might be talking about the Kubernetes cluster and its users and their authorizations and other configuration.

Yes, you're right, deploy_fma.sh is a more appropriate name for this script (cc: fyi @diegocastanibm )

[MikeSpreitzer]

This PR is moot now, the matter has been handled by #386 .