Add MCPRemoteProxy controller integration tests #3376

ChrisJBurns · 2026-01-21T15:50:58Z

Summary

Add integration tests for MCPRemoteProxy controller basic functionality (Integration tests: MCPRemoteProxy Controller #3362)
Test Deployment, Service, ConfigMap, and RBAC resource creation
Test status condition tracking (Ready, Phase, URL, AuthConfigured)
Include test helpers with builder pattern for clean test setup

Test plan

Run task operator-test-integration to verify tests pass
Verify tests cover basic functionality from issue Integration tests: MCPRemoteProxy Controller #3362

Add comprehensive integration tests for the MCPRemoteProxy controller covering basic functionality as outlined in issue #3362: - Deployment creation and validation (labels, ServiceAccount, ports) - Service creation and validation (labels, selectors, ports) - ConfigMap (RunConfig) creation with content validation - RBAC resource creation (ServiceAccount, Role, RoleBinding) - Status condition tracking (Ready, Phase, ObservedGeneration, URL) - AuthConfigured condition for valid OIDC config Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <[email protected]>

codecov · 2026-01-21T15:59:14Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 64.76%. Comparing base (546f5cb) to head (b292dc2).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3376      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.82%   64.76%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         375      375              
  Lines       36626    36626              
==========================================
- Hits        23744    23720      -24     
- Misses      11011    11035      +24     
  Partials     1871     1871

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

jerm-dro

LGTM!

jerm-dro · 2026-01-21T23:44:37Z

...thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-remote-proxy/mcpremoteproxy_controller_integration_test.go

+			By("verifying the Deployment has correct labels")
+			Expect(deployment.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(deployment.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app.kubernetes.io/name", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(deployment.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app.kubernetes.io/instance", proxy.Name))
+			Expect(deployment.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive", "true"))
+			Expect(deployment.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive-name", proxy.Name))
+
+			By("verifying the Deployment has correct spec")
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Replicas).NotTo(BeNil())
+			Expect(*deployment.Spec.Replicas).To(Equal(int32(1)))
+
+			By("verifying the Deployment has correct selector labels")
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Selector.MatchLabels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Selector.MatchLabels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive-name", proxy.Name))
+
+			By("verifying the pod template has correct labels")
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Template.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Template.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive", "true"))
+
+			By("verifying the container configuration")
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Template.Spec.Containers).To(HaveLen(1))
+			container := deployment.Spec.Template.Spec.Containers[0]
+			Expect(container.Name).To(Equal("toolhive"))
+			Expect(container.Ports).To(HaveLen(1))
+			Expect(container.Ports[0].ContainerPort).To(Equal(int32(8080)))
+			Expect(container.Ports[0].Name).To(Equal("http"))


nit, non-blocking: are there helper functions that would allow these assertions to be more declarative?

Ideally, we'd write Expect(actualDeployment).To(Equal(expectedDeployments), so the tests are less gingko boilerplate.

jerm-dro · 2026-01-21T23:46:09Z

...thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-remote-proxy/mcpremoteproxy_controller_integration_test.go

+
+			By("verifying the Deployment uses the correct ServiceAccount")
+			expectedServiceAccountName := fmt.Sprintf("%s-remote-proxy-runner", proxy.Name)
+			Expect(deployment.Spec.Template.Spec.ServiceAccountName).To(Equal(expectedServiceAccountName))


nit, non-blocking: You could just pull these lines up to the test above. No need to create a brand new Deployment.

jerm-dro · 2026-01-21T23:47:40Z

...thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-remote-proxy/mcpremoteproxy_controller_integration_test.go

+			By("verifying the Service has correct labels")
+			Expect(service.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(service.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app.kubernetes.io/name", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(service.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app.kubernetes.io/instance", proxy.Name))
+			Expect(service.Labels).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive", "true"))
+
+			By("verifying the Service port configuration")
+			Expect(service.Spec.Ports).To(HaveLen(1))
+			Expect(service.Spec.Ports[0].Port).To(Equal(int32(8080)))
+			Expect(service.Spec.Ports[0].Name).To(Equal("http"))
+
+			By("verifying the Service selector")
+			Expect(service.Spec.Selector).To(HaveKeyWithValue("app", "mcpremoteproxy"))
+			Expect(service.Spec.Selector).To(HaveKeyWithValue("toolhive-name", proxy.Name))


Nit: Again, these assertions could be made on the MCPRemoteProxy from line 49.

jerm-dro · 2026-01-21T23:52:29Z

cmd/thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-remote-proxy/remoteproxy_helpers.go

+
+// NewRemoteProxyBuilder creates a new MCPRemoteProxy builder with sensible defaults
+// for required fields (RemoteURL, OIDCConfig) so tests only need to override what they're testing
+func (h *MCPRemoteProxyTestHelper) NewRemoteProxyBuilder(name string) *RemoteProxyBuilder {


Suggestion, feel free to ignore: you might be able to get rid of these helpers if you reuse the MCPRemoteProxy for more tests. That would also improve test readibility. For example, for one of the tests, I wondered "where does 'remote.example.com' come from?"

jerm-dro · 2026-01-21T23:53:51Z

cmd/thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-remote-proxy/suite_test.go

+	RunSpecs(t, "MCPRemoteProxy Controller Integration Test Suite", suiteConfig, reporterConfig)
+}
+
+var _ = BeforeSuite(func() {


Non-blocking, for my education: do we really have to redefine these for every directory in test-integration? How could we avoid doing this?

github-actions bot added the size/L Large PR: 600-999 lines changed label Jan 21, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into adds-remote-proxy-int-tests

b292dc2

github-actions bot added size/L Large PR: 600-999 lines changed and removed size/L Large PR: 600-999 lines changed labels Jan 21, 2026

jhrozek approved these changes Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

ChrisJBurns merged commit 8571282 into main Jan 21, 2026
35 checks passed

ChrisJBurns deleted the adds-remote-proxy-int-tests branch January 21, 2026 21:23

jerm-dro reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Add MCPRemoteProxy controller integration tests #3376

Add MCPRemoteProxy controller integration tests #3376

Uh oh!

ChrisJBurns commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jerm-dro left a comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Add MCPRemoteProxy controller integration tests #3376

Add MCPRemoteProxy controller integration tests #3376

Uh oh!

Conversation

ChrisJBurns commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Test plan

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jerm-dro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jerm-dro Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

ChrisJBurns commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading