Add multi control plane e2e tests

[luksa]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.27%. Comparing base (bbc577d) to head (47eeeb9).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #610      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   74.43%   74.27%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        2511     2511              
==========================================
- Hits         1869     1865       -4     
- Misses        554      557       +3     
- Partials       88       89       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[luksa]

/retest

[sridhargaddam]

The tests are failing due to docker rate-limiting.

    2m16s       Warning   Failed                         pod/istiod-7c5bf57d85-hjnpt      Failed to pull image "docker.io/istio/pilot:1.24.2-distroless": failed to pull and unpack image "docker.io/istio/pilot:1.24.2-distroless": failed to copy: httpReadSeeker: failed open: unexpected status code https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/istio/pilot/manifests/sha256:137e44e3d1d2af7421b6817b2e913cd4be8602e8e6a30f7e1c90614923926771: 429 Too Many Requests - Server message: toomanyrequests: You have reached your pull rate limit. You may increase the limit by authenticating and upgrading: https://www.docker.com/increase-rate-limit

[luksa]

/retest

[luksa]

/retest

[fjglira]

lgtm only small comment to make more clear to the people reading the test

[fjglira]

I think it will be easier to understand if it said: "Multiple Control Planes Installation"

[luksa]

But this isn't testing the just the installation of multiple control planes. It's testing the "entire" multi-control plane scenario.

[fjglira]

Delete this?

[fjglira]

And maybe add a note here:

Note: Is expected to fail the request between apps off different namespace and meshes

[fjglira]

Or better, add a Success( Request between namespaces on the different mesh are failing as expected)

[luksa]

Done.

[fjglira]

Add a Success( Request between applications of the same mesh are successfully)

[luksa]

Done.

[sridhargaddam]

To differentiate between the controlPlane testSuite which is already using "clControlPlane".

Suggested change

	k = kubectl.New("clControlPlane")
	k = kubectl.New("clMultiControlPlane")

[luksa]

I was wondering about this. Why is this called "clSomething"?

[luksa]

Nevermind. I looked at why this is needed and have now removed it from most of the tests. This is only needed for tests involving multiple clusters.

[sridhargaddam]

In the other testSuites, we run the tests against all the supported versions. However, in this PR we are validating it with supportedversion.New alone. Is this intentional?

[luksa]

Yes, it was intentional. I started with only a single version, because if we want to test this on multiple versions, then we actually need to test it on all possible version pair combinations. Do you think we should do this?

[sridhargaddam]

I think it would be an overkill to test all possible combinations. I am fine with validating against a single version.