test(epp): add unit tests for error package #1052

nsega · 2025-06-24T02:32:28Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR adds comprehensive unit tests for the pkg/epp/util/error package, which previously had no test coverage.

Changes:

Add comprehensive tests for Error.Error() method
Add tests for CanonicalCode() function with edge cases
Test all error code constants
Cover 100% test coverage for pkg/epp/util/error

Testing:

All new tests pass
Existing tests continue to pass
100% test coverage achieved for the package

netlify · 2025-06-24T02:32:34Z

✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`35d2f23`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/gateway-api-inference-extension/deploys/685f5c7005edf30008968591
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1052--gateway-api-inference-extension.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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-24T02:32:37Z

Welcome @nsega!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api-inference-extension 🎉. 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/gateway-api-inference-extension 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. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-24T02:32:38Z

Hi @nsega. 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.

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.

kfswain · 2025-06-24T21:55:32Z

/ok-to-test

kfswain · 2025-06-24T21:56:55Z

Looks great! Thanks! Will approve once CI finishes (assuming it all passes)

nsega · 2025-06-25T00:40:52Z

/retest

- Add comprehensive tests for Error.Error() method - Add tests for CanonicalCode() function with edge cases - Test all error code constants - Achieve 100% test coverage for pkg/epp/util/error Signed-off-by: Naoki Sega <nsegaster@gmail.com>

nsega · 2025-06-25T02:17:55Z

@kfswain Thank you for your review!

I just addressed the CI Test failure, which was the Boilerplate header of the target test code was wrong ref

Just in case, I verified locally using hack/verify-boilerplate.sh as well after adding the correct boilerplate header with the exact format used by the project.　

Since all CI passes successfully, can you please approve this at your convenience?

danehans · 2025-06-27T22:21:54Z

pkg/epp/util/error/error_test.go

+	constants := map[string]string{
+		"Unknown":                        Unknown,
+		"BadRequest":                     BadRequest,
+		"Internal":                       Internal,
+		"ModelServerError":               ModelServerError,
+		"BadConfiguration":               BadConfiguration,
+		"InferencePoolResourceExhausted": InferencePoolResourceExhausted,
+	}
+
+	expectedValues := map[string]string{
+		"Unknown":                        "Unknown",
+		"BadRequest":                     "BadRequest",
+		"Internal":                       "Internal",
+		"ModelServerError":               "ModelServerError",
+		"BadConfiguration":               "BadConfiguration",
+		"InferencePoolResourceExhausted": "InferencePoolResourceExhausted",
+	}


Why not use the consts as map keys:

const ( Unknown = "Unknown" BadRequest = "BadRequest" Internal = "Internal" ModelServerError = "ModelServerError" BadConfiguration = "BadConfiguration" InferencePoolResourceExhausted = "InferencePoolResourceExhausted" )

It makes sense to me. Since the constants and expected values I defined seem redundant, I updated the test case by simplifying it to define only one map as a test.

these constants already defined in error.go. why not use reference them? why do we need to define them again?

gateway-api-inference-extension/pkg/epp/util/error/error.go

Lines 29 to 36 in 9c9abd5

const (

Unknown = "Unknown"

BadRequest = "BadRequest"

Internal = "Internal"

ModelServerError = "ModelServerError"

BadConfiguration = "BadConfiguration"

InferencePoolResourceExhausted = "InferencePoolResourceExhausted"

)

@nirrozenbaum Based on danehans's feedback the other day, I updated the test to check the error message using the constant. 35d2f23 How does it sound to you?

I was commenting on the previous comment, sorry.

I think overall the code looks great, just not sure why unit-tests for constants are needed :)
Constants are compile-time values, there's no logic or behavior to test here — it's static data.

Unit tests are meant to test behavior and logic, not to assert that literals haven't changed (unless those values are dynamically generated or critical public APIs).

@nirrozenbaum No worries. I agree with your point. In general, we don't need to write unit tests for constants like you said. However, I do think that testing the literal values of exported constants is a valid and important test when those constants are part of the public API, potentially used by external systems, or part of error messages that might be parsed. This is the reason why I added the case.

that's also fine to keep them :)

nsega

@danehans Thank you for your feedback! I addressed it. Can you please take a look at it again?

nsega · 2025-06-28T03:06:02Z

pkg/epp/util/error/error_test.go

+	constants := map[string]string{
+		"Unknown":                        Unknown,
+		"BadRequest":                     BadRequest,
+		"Internal":                       Internal,
+		"ModelServerError":               ModelServerError,
+		"BadConfiguration":               BadConfiguration,
+		"InferencePoolResourceExhausted": InferencePoolResourceExhausted,
+	}
+
+	expectedValues := map[string]string{
+		"Unknown":                        "Unknown",
+		"BadRequest":                     "BadRequest",
+		"Internal":                       "Internal",
+		"ModelServerError":               "ModelServerError",
+		"BadConfiguration":               "BadConfiguration",
+		"InferencePoolResourceExhausted": "InferencePoolResourceExhausted",
+	}


It makes sense to me. Since the constants and expected values I defined seem redundant, I updated the test case by simplifying it to define only one map as a test.

nirrozenbaum · 2025-06-29T07:45:15Z

/lgtm
/approve

Congrats @nsega on your first inference gateway PR!

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-29T07:45:22Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nirrozenbaum, nsega

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [nirrozenbaum]

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

nsega · 2025-06-29T08:06:17Z

@nirrozenbaum Thank you very much for your kind review! I was excited to contribute to inference gateway for the first time.

k8s-ci-robot added the kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. label Jun 24, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 24, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from danehans and liu-cong June 24, 2025 02:32

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jun 24, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 24, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 24, 2025

test(epp): add unit tests for error package

fce8bf8

- Add comprehensive tests for Error.Error() method - Add tests for CanonicalCode() function with edge cases - Test all error code constants - Achieve 100% test coverage for pkg/epp/util/error Signed-off-by: Naoki Sega <nsegaster@gmail.com>

nsega force-pushed the add-error-util-tests branch from a90af55 to fce8bf8 Compare June 25, 2025 01:55

danehans reviewed Jun 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

test(epp): refactor TestErrorConstants to use single map

35d2f23

nsega commented Jun 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

nsega requested a review from danehans June 28, 2025 03:08

k8s-ci-robot assigned nirrozenbaum Jun 29, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 29, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 29, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 84f387e into kubernetes-sigs:main Jun 29, 2025
8 of 9 checks passed

	const (
	Unknown = "Unknown"
	BadRequest = "BadRequest"
	Internal = "Internal"
	ModelServerError = "ModelServerError"
	BadConfiguration = "BadConfiguration"
	InferencePoolResourceExhausted = "InferencePoolResourceExhausted"
	)

test(epp): add unit tests for error package #1052

test(epp): add unit tests for error package #1052

Conversation

nsega commented Jun 24, 2025

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Changes:

Testing:

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

kfswain commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

kfswain commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

nsega commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

nsega commented Jun 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

danehans Jun 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nsega Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nirrozenbaum Jun 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nsega Jun 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nirrozenbaum Jun 29, 2025 • 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!

nsega Jun 29, 2025 • 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!

nirrozenbaum Jun 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nsega left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nsega Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nirrozenbaum commented Jun 29, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nsega commented Jun 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nsega commented Jun 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nirrozenbaum Jun 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nsega Jun 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading