[integration tests] add regular workspace PVC integration test from PVC test plans

[jenting]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

Manually go thru. the PVC test plans take about half a day, and it's too long for each release to manually test against all the PVC test plans.

Describe the behaviour you'd like

Trying to add more integration tests from the PVC test plans if possible, and make the manual PVC tests as small as possible.
Therefore, we could minimize the deployer only need to test the manually PVC test plans.

Describe alternatives you've considered

None

Definition of Done (DoD)

• Update existing tests with PVC feature flag
  • TestBackup PVC integration tests: TestBackup and TestRegularWorkspaceTasks and TestWorkspaceEnableAndDisablePVC #12620
  • TestRegularWorkspaceTasks PVC integration tests: TestBackup and TestRegularWorkspaceTasks and TestWorkspaceEnableAndDisablePVC #12620
  • TestGitHubContexts PVC integration tests: TestGitHubContexts and TestGitActions and TestGitLFSSupport #12650
  • TestGitActions PVC integration tests: TestGitHubContexts and TestGitActions and TestGitLFSSupport #12650
  • TestGitLFSSupport PVC integration tests: TestGitHubContexts and TestGitActions and TestGitLFSSupport #12650
• Add new tests
  • PVC test plans regular workspace case 2 Existing workspace and enable PVC (Disable PVC ❌ → Enable PVC ✅) PVC integration tests: TestBackup and TestRegularWorkspaceTasks and TestWorkspaceEnableAndDisablePVC #12620
  • PVC test plans regular workspace case 3 Fresh new workspace and enable PVC, then disable PVC (Enable PVC ✅ → Disable PVC ❌ ) PVC integration tests: TestBackup and TestRegularWorkspaceTasks and TestWorkspaceEnableAndDisablePVC #12620

Additional context

#7901

@jenting I briefly looked at the below tests, and removed them from scope for now. Can you review, and let me know your thoughts? They seem unnecessary, but, let me know what you think? 🙏

• Other regular workspace tests, not necessarily needed for PVC
  • TestWorkspaceInstrumentation (creates a user via server API, starts a workspace from gitpod repo, transfers or uses an agent to the workspace pod, sets up a port forward, and asserts it can connect to the agent via RPC...it is unclear how this relates to PVC)?
  • TestLaunchWorkspaceDirectly (this is exercised in most of the tests starting a workspace already)

[kylos101]

👋 thank you for moving this to in-progress, @jenting !

To start, I recommend a minimal PR, which covers regular workspace start and stop scenarios, by adding the PVC feature flag to existing tests, as new permutations for those tests (you might have to alter them to conditionally support feature flags). Then, if some regular workspace scenarios are still not covered from the PVC test plan, plan on writing those new tests in a separate PR.

In other words, please create a separate issue to cover prebuilds with PVC, and don't plan on covering prebuild test cases for now.

[kylos101]

@jenting I updated Additional Context for this issue to reduce the # of required tests for regular workspaces, please review? 🙏

[kylos101]

👋 @jenting regarding cases 2 and 3 (which warrant new tests), if I were to run those cases, would you expect them to pass? I ask because this discussion is unresolved.

[jenting]

👋 @jenting regarding cases 2 and 3 (which warrant new tests), if I were to run those cases, would you expect them to pass? I ask because this discussion is unresolved.

Yes, I expect them to pass.

[jenting]

@jenting I updated Additional Context for this issue to reduce the # of required tests for regular workspaces, please review? 🙏

Thanks for the detailed check, I agree those two tests do not require testing against the PVC feature flag.

[kylos101]

@jenting could you move the Prebuild tests for PVC tasks to a separate issue? That way, this issue doesn't stay "in progress" for "too long" in our groundwork. 🙇