Quarantine SSP DataSource opt-in/opt-out tests for CNV-86273

[geetikakay]

Short description:

label cdi.kubevirt.io/dataImportCron was expected and somehow it's not there.
all the analysis is being done in https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/CNV-86273

More details:

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for reviewer:

jira-ticket:

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Added expected failure markers to test classes handling data source volume update scenarios to manage flaky and quarantined test cases.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR adds @pytest.mark.xfail decorators with run=False to two test classes in a single test file to quarantine flaky data-source volume update scenarios (opt-in and opt-out label tests). Both decorators reference tracking issue CNV-86273 and prevent test execution.

Changes

Test Quarantine for Flaky Data Source Tests

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Test Quarantine Markers tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py	@pytest.mark.xfail(reason=..., run=False) decorators added before TestDataSourcesOptInLabel and TestDataSourcesOptOutLabel to quarantine CNV-86273 flaky scenarios.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The description is largely incomplete. Only the 'Short description' section is partially filled; all other required sections (More details, What this PR does/why we need it, Which issue(s) this PR fixes, Special notes for reviewer, jira-ticket) are empty or contain only placeholders.	Complete the remaining template sections: explain why tests are quarantined, what the underlying issue is, why this fix is needed, which issue(s) it addresses, provide the full Jira ticket URL, and add any reviewer notes.
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly matches the changeset: it describes quarantining SSP DataSource opt-in/opt-out tests and references the tracked issue CNV-86273.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-5]

Report bugs in Issues

Welcome! 🎉

This pull request will be automatically processed with the following features:

🔄 Automatic Actions

• Reviewer Assignment: Reviewers are automatically assigned based on the OWNERS file in the repository root
• Size Labeling: PR size labels (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) are automatically applied based on changes
• Issue Creation: A tracking issue is created for this PR and will be closed when the PR is merged or closed
• Branch Labeling: Branch-specific labels are applied to track the target branch
• Auto-verification: Auto-verified users have their PRs automatically marked as verified
• Labels: Enabled categories: branch, can-be-merged, cherry-pick, has-conflicts, hold, needs-rebase, size, verified, wip

📋 Available Commands

PR Status Management

• /wip - Mark PR as work in progress (adds WIP: prefix to title)
• /wip cancel - Remove work in progress status
• /hold - Block PR merging (approvers only)
• /hold cancel - Unblock PR merging
• /verified - Mark PR as verified
• /verified cancel - Remove verification status
• /reprocess - Trigger complete PR workflow reprocessing (useful if webhook failed or configuration changed)
• /regenerate-welcome - Regenerate this welcome message

Review & Approval

• /lgtm - Approve changes (looks good to me)
• /approve - Approve PR (approvers only)
• /assign-reviewers - Assign reviewers based on OWNERS file
• /assign-reviewer @username - Assign specific reviewer
• /check-can-merge - Check if PR meets merge requirements

Testing & Validation

• /retest tox - Run Python test suite with tox
• /retest build-container - Rebuild and test container image
• /retest verify-bugs-are-open - verify-bugs-are-open
• /retest all - Run all available tests

Container Operations

• /build-and-push-container - Build and push container image (tagged with PR number)
  • Supports additional build arguments: /build-and-push-container --build-arg KEY=value

Cherry-pick Operations

• /cherry-pick <branch> - Schedule cherry-pick to target branch when PR is merged
  • Multiple branches: /cherry-pick branch1 branch2 branch3

Label Management

• /<label-name> - Add a label to the PR
• /<label-name> cancel - Remove a label from the PR

✅ Merge Requirements

This PR will be automatically approved when the following conditions are met:

1. Approval: /approve from at least one approver
2. LGTM Count: Minimum 2 /lgtm from reviewers
3. Status Checks: All required status checks must pass
4. No Blockers: No wip, hold, has-conflicts labels and PR must be mergeable (no conflicts)
5. Verified: PR must be marked as verified

📊 Review Process

Approvers and Reviewers

Approvers:

• dshchedr
• myakove
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Reviewers:

• RoniKishner
• dshchedr
• geetikakay
• mijankow
• rnetser
• vsibirsk

Available Labels

• hold
• verified
• wip
• lgtm
• approve

AI Features

• Cherry-Pick Conflict Resolution: Enabled (claude/claude-opus-4-6[1m])

💡 Tips

• WIP Status: Use /wip when your PR is not ready for review
• Verification: The verified label is removed on new commits unless the push is detected as a clean rebase
• Cherry-picking: Cherry-pick labels are processed when the PR is merged
• Container Builds: Container images are automatically tagged with the PR number
• Permission Levels: Some commands require approver permissions
• Auto-verified Users: Certain users have automatic verification and merge privileges

For more information, please refer to the project documentation or contact the maintainers.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In
`@tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py`:
- Around line 561-564: Replace the pytest.xfail quarantine marker used with the
product-bug marker: locate the pytest.mark.xfail block (the decorator
referencing QUARANTINED and CNV-86273) in the test_ssp_data_sources tests and
change it to pytest.mark.jira("CNV-86273", run=False); ensure any occurrences
(both the block at the original decorator and the similar one later) are
updated, remove or adjust the QUARANTINED constant usage if no longer needed,
and keep the original reason text but use the jira marker so the test is tracked
as a product-bug quarantine.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: b66ff166-40d2-4fee-a8a4-ee3a4b7d018d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 37989ad and 967ccbf.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py

[geetikakay]

/build-and-push-container

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-5]

New container for quay.io/openshift-cnv/openshift-virtualization-tests:pr-4782 published

[geetikakay]

/verified
3 tests failed in run cnv-tests-runner-containerized/6078/consoleText but due to artifactory connectivity issue

[openshift-virtualization-qe-bot-3]

@coderabbitai

Test execution plan request details

CRITICAL: You MUST post an inline review comment on the first changed line of the first file.
The inline comment should contain the Test Execution Plan with the smoke tests recommendation.
Do NOT submit a formal review - just post the inline comment directly.

As an expert software testing engineer, analyze all modified files in this PR and create a targeted test execution plan.
You will post an inline review comment with the test execution plan on the first changed file.
If you fail to run or post a comment, retry.

Analysis Requirements:

1. Examine code changes in each modified file
2. Identify affected code paths, functions, and classes
3. Analyze pytest-specific elements: fixtures (scope, dependencies), parametrization, markers, conftest changes
4. Trace test dependencies through imports, shared utilities, and fixture inheritance
5. Detect new tests introduced in the PR
6. Smoke Test Impact Analysis: Determine if any changes could affect smoke tests by checking:
   • Changes to files/functions used by tests marked with @pytest.mark.smoke
   • Changes to fixtures or utilities imported by smoke tests
   • Changes to conftest.py files that may affect smoke test execution
   • Changes to core infrastructure code (utilities/, libs/) that smoke tests depend on

Your deliverable:
Your change request comment will be based on the following requirements:

Test Execution Plan

• Run smoke tests: True / False (Based on your smoke test impact analysis - True if any changes may affect smoke tests)
• path/to/test_file.py - When the entire test file needs verification
• path/to/test_file.py::TestClass::test_method - When specific test(s) needed
• path/to/test_file.py::test_function - When specific test(s) needed
• -m marker - When specific marker(s) can be used to cover multiple cases.

Guidelines:

• Include only tests directly affected by the changes
• Use a full file path only if ALL tests in that file require verification
• Use file path + test name if only specific tests are needed
• If a test marker can cover multiple files/tests, provide the marker
• Balance coverage vs over-testing - Keep descriptions minimal

Hardware-Related Checks (SR-IOV, GPU, DPDK):

When PR modifies fixtures for hardware-specific resources:

• Collection Safety: Fixtures MUST have existence checks (return None when hardware unavailable)
• Test Plan: MUST verify both WITH and WITHOUT hardware:
  • Run affected tests on cluster WITH hardware
  • Verify collection succeeds on cluster WITHOUT hardware

CRITICAL WORKFLOW COMPLETION RULES:

When responding to this test execution plan request, you MUST follow these rules EXACTLY:

1. YOUR ONLY DELIVERABLE: Post an inline review comment containing the test execution plan on the first changed line
2. THEN STOP IMMEDIATELY - Do NOT generate any additional response
3. FALLBACK ONLY: If submitting the review fails after retrying, post as a regular PR comment
4. SILENCE = SUCCESS: After successfully submitting the review, your task is complete. No confirmation needed.

ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS (violating these creates empty/meaningless reviews):

• ❌ Do NOT post acknowledgment messages like "Test execution plan posted", "Review posted successfully", "I've successfully posted"
• ❌ Do NOT mention review IDs, URLs, or confirmation of posting in the PR thread
• ❌ Do NOT add any follow-up comments after submitting the review
• ❌ Do NOT reply to confirm task completion
• ❌ Do NOT explain what you did - just do it and stop

Remember: The pull request review is visible to users. Additional comments are redundant noise.

CRITICAL: Before setting "Run smoke tests: True", you MUST use shell scripts to:
- Trace the actual fixture dependency chain from smoke tests to changed fixtures
- Verify that smoke tests actually import/use changed utilities or functions
- Confirm the dependency path exists; do NOT assume based on scope or semantics
- Be conservative: Session-scoped fixtures or infrastructure-sounding names do NOT
automatically mean smoke test impact. Only flag smoke test impact when you can
demonstrate a concrete dependency path.
WRONG: "This session-scoped storage fixture might affect smoke tests"
RIGHT: "Smoke test X uses fixture Y, which depends on the changed fixture Z"

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the PR diff to find the first changed line
gh pr diff 4782 --repo RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests | head -60

# Find smoke test markers in the changed file
grep -n "smoke" tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py 2>/dev/null || echo "No smoke markers found in changed file"

# Check if any smoke tests import or use the changed file
rg -rn "test_ssp_data_sources\|TestDataSourcesOptInLabel\|TestDataSourcesOptOutLabel" --type py -g "!test_ssp_data_sources.py" | head -20

# Find the first changed line number in the diff
gh api repos/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/pulls/4782/files | jq '.[0] | {filename: .filename, patch: .patch}' | head -40

Length of output: 3045

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the latest commit SHA for the PR
COMMIT_SHA=$(gh api repos/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/pulls/4782 | jq -r '.head.sha')
echo "Commit SHA: $COMMIT_SHA"

# Post inline review comment on the first changed line (diff position 4)
gh api repos/RedHatQE/openshift-virtualization-tests/pulls/4782/reviews \
  --method POST \
  --field commit_id="$COMMIT_SHA" \
  --field body="" \
  --field event="COMMENT" \
  --field "comments[][path]=tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py" \
  --field "comments[][position]=4" \
  --field "comments[][body]=**Test Execution Plan**

- **Run smoke tests: False** _(No smoke markers in changed file; no concrete dependency path from smoke tests to modified code)_

**Affected tests** (xfail marker moved from method-level to class-level — all tests in both classes are now fully quarantined with \`run=False\`):
- \`tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py::TestDataSourcesOptInLabel\`
- \`tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py::TestDataSourcesOptOutLabel\`

> Since \`run=False\` prevents execution entirely, no active test run is needed for these classes. Verify collection succeeds without errors:
\`\`\`
pytest tests/infrastructure/golden_images/update_boot_source/test_ssp_data_sources.py --collect-only
\`\`\`" \
  | jq '{review_id: .id, state: .state}'

Length of output: 107

---