let's also run the job for release-v* branches

Done!

Just one question: make test generates a cover.out artifact. Should I do something with it? Or is it picked-up somehow by the TestGrid?

setting "decorate: true" inserts an env variable to the prow job container - $ARTIFACTS (usually pointing to /logs/artifacts/ path in the container)

so for cover.out or any other artifacts to show up in the Prow spyglass (prow.k8s.io) artifacts tab, copy/move these files to $ARTIFACTS directory path.

Prow sidecar component will pick up these files collected in $ARTIFACTS path and show them in Artifacts tab.

see for examples -
https://cs.k8s.io/?q=ARTIFACTS&i=nope&literal=nope&files=&excludeFiles=&repos=kubernetes/test-infra

and docs - https://docs.prow.k8s.io/docs/components/pod-utilities/

Changed. PTAL.

@vitorfloriano, apologies for suggesting it in parts.

Since we're going to move/run all our test suites for NRC repo in Prow now, and all of those tests will have artifacts of interest, so, how about we make the change in the Makefile itself - https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/node-readiness-controller/blob/2239ccef203f6be9af3209ae7b8d146b9fccfb55/Makefile

at the top of the makefile, define an env variable ARTIFACTS defaulting to path /logs/artifacts

And then in the test make target - we can capture the cover.out at path something like $ARTIFACTS/cover.out?

Same we can do for other tests as well as we move.

That way, we don't have to do this copy/pasting of each artifact file to ARTIFACTS here in the job definition.

WDYT?

@Priyankasaggu11929 no problem. I thought about that at first, but then I considered that the make targets could be run locally and then I thought it would be better to move the artifacts here in the prowjob only.

But agreed, outputting to /logs/artifacts/cover.out seems more elegant. I'll open a PR in a minute.