Setup/Teardown run as subtest using provided name about e2e-framework HOT 10 OPEN

@phisco I think it's a good idea to take a closer look how setup and teardown are put together. I don't see any harm in running them as subtests similar to other steps like "Assess".

from e2e-framework.

Ping @vladimirvivien @harshanarayana given that I had your attention for the other issue 😬

from e2e-framework.

@harshanarayana, do you mean for the names in the features? Teardown and Setup steps can already define a name, which in the case of the Assess steps are used as name for their dedicated sub-test, while here they are just ignored. See here for an example of how we use it.

I would expect each of these steps to be executed in its own sub-test and to be shown as .../Teardown/<NAME_OF_THE_STEP> for example here:

--- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault (30.30s)
    --- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/TestEnvironmentConfigDefault (30.30s)
        --- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/CreateClaim (13.51s)
        --- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/MRHasAnnotation (0.51s)
        --- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/Teardown/DisableAlphaEnvironmentConfig (X.Ys)

or wthout the Teardown part:

        --- PASS: TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/TestEnvironmentConfigDefault/DisableAlphaEnvironmentConfig (X.Ys)

I'd have to check how this would play out with the current way setup teardown steps are handled.

from e2e-framework.

Cool @vladimirvivien, I can give it a look over the holidays and try opening a PR for it!

from e2e-framework.

+1 to this. This will be a very useful change.

from e2e-framework.

@phisco Do you happen to have a possible format for these setup/teardowns in mind in terms of naming them ? If so, please share that here ?

from e2e-framework.