test: test luks encryption key

[richm]

The storage_test_volume.encryption_key comes from the same variable that
is used to write the key to the crypttab - so change the test to test
against the original value passed in to the role.

Signed-off-by: Rich Megginson [email protected]

Summary by Sourcery

Improve LUKS encryption tests to verify against the original key and expand coverage across disk interfaces

Tests:

• Update encryption assertion to use __test_encryption_key variable for crypttab verification
• Add auto-generated playbooks for NVMe and SCSI variants of mixed and mixed_2 LUKS tests

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

This PR refactors the LUKS encryption verification tests to assert against the original key passed to the role and expands test coverage by auto-generating interface-specific playbooks for nvme and scsi scenarios.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Assert crypttab entry against the original encryption key	Switched expected crypttab key file variable to use __test_encryption_key with a fallback Added __test_encryption_key var injection in LUKS test include tasks	tests/test-verify-volume-encryption.yml tests/tests_luks.yml
Generate interface-specific LUKS mixed test playbooks	Auto-generated playbooks for nvme and scsi for mixed and mixed_2 tests Set storage_test_use_interface fact before importing the generic playbook	tests/tests_luks_mixed_nvme_generated.yml tests/tests_luks_mixed_scsi_generated.yml tests/tests_luks_mixed_2_nvme_generated.yml tests/tests_luks_mixed_2_scsi_generated.yml

Possibly linked issues

• #0: The PR adjusts a test's expected value for the encryption key in the crypttab entry, directly resolving the 'Incorrect key file' assertion failure reported in the issue.

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @richm - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

• Consider consolidating the autogenerated per-interface test playbooks into a single parametric playbook (or loop over interfaces) to reduce duplication and maintenance overhead.
• Ensure that __test_encryption_key is explicitly defined (or defaults are handled) in every test that references it, so you don’t run into undefined-variable errors in other scenarios.
• Double-check that using '-' as the default for storage_test_volume.encryption_key matches the real crypttab behavior when no key is provided, and add a test case for the empty‐key path if needed.

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- Consider consolidating the autogenerated per-interface test playbooks into a single parametric playbook (or loop over interfaces) to reduce duplication and maintenance overhead.
- Ensure that __test_encryption_key is explicitly defined (or defaults are handled) in every test that references it, so you don’t run into undefined-variable errors in other scenarios.
- Double-check that using '-' as the default for storage_test_volume.encryption_key matches the real crypttab behavior when no key is provided, and add a test case for the empty‐key path if needed.

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 10.66%. Comparing base (59fd1c6) to head (e1b76ad).
Report is 73 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (59fd1c6) and HEAD (e1b76ad). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (59fd1c6)	HEAD (e1b76ad)
sanity	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #547      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   16.54%   10.66%   -5.89%     
==========================================
  Files           2        8       +6     
  Lines         284     1960    +1676     
  Branches       79        0      -79     
==========================================
+ Hits           47      209     +162     
- Misses        237     1751    +1514     

Flag	Coverage Δ
sanity	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[richm]

This is the test for #546