docs: Update managed-scripts testing method

[feichashao]

What type of PR is this?

• fix (Bug Fix)
• feat (New Feature)
• docs (Documentation)
• test (Test Coverage)
• chore (Clean Up / Maintenance Tasks)
• other (Anything that doesn't fit the above)

What this PR does / Why we need it?

Update docs for the changes in #980

Which Jira/Github issue(s) does this PR fix?

Related to ROSAENG-61274

Special notes for your reviewer

Unit Test Coverage

Guidelines

• If it's a new sub-command or new function to an existing sub-command, please cover at least 50% of the code
• If it's a bug fix for an existing sub-command, please cover 70% of the code

Test coverage checks

• Added unit tests
• Created jira card to add unit test
• This PR may not need unit tests

Pre-checks (if applicable)

• Ran unit tests locally
• Validated the changes in a cluster
• Included documentation changes with PR
• Backward compatible

/label tide/merge-method-squash

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Review was skipped due to path filters

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)

• README.md is excluded by !**/*.md
• docs/testing-managed-scripts.md is excluded by !**/*.md

CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including **/dist/** will override the default block on the dist directory, by removing the pattern from both the lists.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 83f688b6-efc4-409f-9208-7302ad2fc3a0

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

---

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

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 56.13%. Comparing base (174bf3d) to head (19d7213).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #986      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   56.16%   56.13%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          83       83              
  Lines        6677     6677              
==========================================
- Hits         3750     3748       -2     
- Misses       2459     2460       +1     
- Partials      468      469       +1     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[xiaoyu74]

Just to clarify the prerequisite here: as we don't use backplane to login but cluster-admin instead.

This cluster-admin access is cluster-specific, right? So this workflow assumes the script author has a non-prod cluster they own/control and can obtain direct cluster-admin credentials rather than picking an random staging fleet cluster as with the old test-script endpoint.

If that's the intended workflow, maybe worth making that explicit in the doc?

[feichashao]

That's a good point. Yeah, that's intended and it is a safe method for testing scripts.

Let me mention this explicitly in the doc.

[feichashao]

Add a new commit with a Prerequisite to mention this.

[xiaoyu74]

one more thought, does this intentionally require every script contributor to have their own non-prod cluster with direct cluster-admin access?

For SRE users who already have Backplane access, backplane login + elevate should also work with the rendered YAML, and lets them test on any suitable staging cluster without having to create/own one.

The render command itself is independent of how the kubeconfig is obtained

[feichashao]

Yeah, I think as long as the user have cluster-admin access, either backplane elevation or IDP cluster-admin.

Usually MCS or SRE can create their own cluster with cluster-admin, that's the cleanest way for testing. But sometime they can just borrow a cluster with backplane elevation on staging to test, that will be audited.

I pushed a new commit to make the prerequisite more clear about this. PTAL.

[openshift-ci]

@feichashao: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[xiaoyu74]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: feichashao, xiaoyu74

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [feichashao,xiaoyu74]

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