Ported Broker ingress conformance test to the new test framework

[slinkydeveloper]

Trying out the new test framework for something more than examples

Signed-off-by: Francesco Guardiani francescoguard@gmail.com

Proposed Changes

• Ported Broker ingress conformance test to the new test framework
• Moved broker features under features/broker

[knative-prow-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: slinkydeveloper

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• test/OWNERS [slinkydeveloper]

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

[slinkydeveloper]

During the development of this PR I stumbled upon:

• Improve eventshub assertions UX knative-extensions/reconciler-test#83
• Feature config knative-extensions/reconciler-test#82
• Framework needs to help test authors understand how to pass state between steps knative-extensions/reconciler-test#66

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4859 (b1aff7f) into master (82130ea) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4859   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.34%   81.34%           
=======================================
  Files         292      292           
  Lines        8329     8329           
=======================================
  Hits         6775     6775           
  Misses       1145     1145           
  Partials      409      409           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 82130ea...5c8c83f. Read the comment docs.

[slinkydeveloper]

cc @vaikas

[slinkydeveloper]

/retest

[lberk]

I like the way the ingress tests are structured! I wonder if there's
a way to also add the MUST of rejecting non-POST requests to the
broker in the future?

/lgtm

[slinkydeveloper]

MUST of rejecting non-POST requests to the
broker in the future?

@lberk I guess we need this feature in eventshub first, it should be quite trivial to add. Can you open an issue there?