feat: return email in signup response

[mfrancisc]

tests for codeready-toolchain/registration-service#555

wrt: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SANDBOX-1439

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests

  • Validate that signup responses now include the user's email.
  • Improve test failure messages to show the actual response body when expected claims are missing.

• Chores

  • Add make targets to ensure operator publish/install steps are available for end-to-end runs, improving test/deploy consistency.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added an email claim assertion and improved a test failure message in the e2e registration test; and added/declared new phony Make targets (including explicit prerequisites for get-publish-and-install-operators) in make/test.mk. No exported/public signatures changed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
E2E test assertion & failure-message update test/e2e/parallel/registration_service_test.go	Added "email": emailAddress to the expected claims in TestSignupOK. Updated signupHasExpectedClaims to report c.responseBody (the actual response body map) in the failure message when a claim is missing.
Makefile phony targets & prerequisites make/test.mk	Added phony target declaration lines for e2e-deploy-latest and get-publish-and-install-operators. Introduced get-publish-and-install-operators with explicit prerequisites: get-and-publish-host-operator create-host-resources get-and-publish-member-operator.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Pay attention to:
  • test/e2e/parallel/registration_service_test.go — ensure the expected email claim matches service behavior and the failure message uses the intended response variable.
  • make/test.mk — confirm the newly declared phony lines and the prerequisites for get-publish-and-install-operators are correct and non-duplicative.

Possibly related PRs

• add check for account number set in signup response #1196 — modifies the same test to extend signup response assertions (similar claim-checking changes).
• SANDBOX-1392: Reg-svc pair Drop dependency on Che instance #1198 — also updates signup response assertions in the same test file.

Suggested reviewers

• xcoulon
• jrosental
• MatousJobanek

Poem

I hopped through tests with a curious gleam,
I tucked an email into signup's dream 🐇
When claims go missing, the response will show,
A tiny clue for where to look and grow ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The pull request title "feat: return email in signup response" directly aligns with the main changes in the changeset. The primary modification is in the test file test/e2e/parallel/registration_service_test.go, where the email field is added to the expected signup response in the TestSignupOK test. This matches the title's description of returning email in the signup response. The secondary changes to make/test.mk are supporting infrastructure updates for test targets and do not conflict with the title. The title is specific, concise, and clearly communicates the primary change without being vague or misleading.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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.}

[rsoaresd]

🚀

[mfrancisc]

/retest

[rajivnathan]

Just a question but do we want to do the same as #1218 ?

[mfrancisc]

reverted in 6e4ef6c , as that PR got merged now.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

make/test.mk (2)

89-91: Consider removing the duplicate target declaration.

Line 89 declares e2e-deploy-latest: as a standalone target, immediately followed by the same target with its recipe on line 90. While syntactically valid in GNU Make, this pattern is unusual, serves no clear purpose, and is inconsistent with all other targets in this Makefile.

Apply this diff to remove the redundant declaration:

 .PHONY: e2e-deploy-latest
-e2e-deploy-latest:
 e2e-deploy-latest:
 	$(MAKE) get-publish-install-and-register-operators MEMBER_NS=${MEMBER_NS} MEMBER_NS_2=${MEMBER_NS_2} HOST_NS=${HOST_NS} REGISTRATION_SERVICE_NS=${REGISTRATION_SERVICE_NS} ENVIRONMENT=${ENVIRONMENT} INSTALL_OPERATOR=${INSTALL_OPERATOR} DEPLOY_LATEST=true KSCTL_TLS_VERIFY_PARAM=${KSCTL_TLS_VERIFY_PARAM}

---

317-318: Consider removing the duplicate target declaration.

Line 317 declares get-publish-and-install-operators: as a standalone target, immediately followed by the same target with its prerequisites on line 318. This pattern is unusual and inconsistent with other targets in this Makefile (compare with line 310 for get-publish-install-and-register-operators).

Apply this diff to remove the redundant declaration:

 .PHONY: get-publish-and-install-operators
 # IMPORTANT: The host operator needs to be installed first.
 #			 The reason is that when the host operator is installed, then the logic creates ToolchainConfig CR which
 #			 defines that the webhook should be deployed from the first member instance (and not from the second one).
 #			 This is important to set before the member operators are installed, otherwise, it can lead to flaky e2e tests.
-get-publish-and-install-operators:
 get-publish-and-install-operators: get-and-publish-host-operator create-host-resources get-and-publish-member-operator

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dc4b1a5 and 6e4ef6c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• make/test.mk (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)

• GitHub Check: Unit Tests
• GitHub Check: Build & push Developer Sandbox UI image for UI e2e tests
• GitHub Check: Build & push operator bundles for e2e tests

[mfrancisc]

/retest

flaky TestRetargetUserWithSBRByChangingSpaceTargetClusterWhenSpaceIsShared

[mfrancisc]

/retest

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[mfrancisc]

/retest

flaky:

    space.go:108: 
        	Error Trace:	/go/src/github.com/codeready-toolchain/toolchain-e2e/testsupport/space/space.go:108
        	            				/go/src/github.com/codeready-toolchain/toolchain-e2e/test/e2e/space_autocompletion_test.go:73
        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	context deadline exceeded
        	Test:       	TestAutomaticClusterAssignment/set_low_max_number_of_spaces_and_expect_that_space_won't_be_provisioned_but_added_on_waiting_list/increment_the_max_number_of_spaces_and_expect_that_first_space_will_be_provisioned.
=== NAME  TestAutomaticClusterAssignment/set_low_max_number_of_spaces_and_expect_that_space_won't_be_provisioned_but_added_on_waiting_list
    clean.go:87: skipping object cleanup, test=TestAutomaticClusterAssignment/set_low_max_number_of_spaces_and_expect_that_space_won't_be_provisioned_but_added_on_waiting_list failedTimestamp=Oct 30 16:32:14.120
=== NAME  TestAutomaticClusterAssignment
    clean.go:87: skipping object cleanup, test=TestAutomaticClusterAssignment failedTimestamp=Oct 30 16:32:14.168

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alexeykazakov, MatousJobanek, metlos, mfrancisc, rajivnathan, rsoaresd

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 [MatousJobanek,alexeykazakov,metlos,mfrancisc,rajivnathan,rsoaresd]

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