test: add tests for cloudflare provider

[natitomattis]

Description

Improve coverage on Cloudflare provider, test some missing cases(from 89,0% to 91,2%)

Fixes #5118

Checklist

• Unit tests updated

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @natitomattis!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/external-dns 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/external-dns has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @natitomattis. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[ivankatliarchuk]

/ok-to-test
/label tide/merge-method-squash

[mloiseleur]

cc @mrozentsvayg

[mrozentsvayg]

Here we could use this test to make sure it really doesn't make changes in dry run, not only hitting the continue line to increase the coverage score.
I would suggest adding:

	ctx := context.Background()
	err := provider.ApplyChanges(ctx, changes)
	if err != nil {
		t.Errorf("should not fail, %s", err)
	}
	records, err := provider.Records(ctx)
	if err != nil {
		t.Errorf("should not fail, %s", err)
	}
	assert.Equal(t, 0, len(records), "should not have any records")

does it make sense?

[natitomattis]

yes, added

[mrozentsvayg]

I understand that this pattern existed before this PR, but it's really taking some time to realize that the difference is only in the envs, while the NewCloudFlareProvider() arguments are identical.
To improve the readability could we possibly combine all those tests into a loop?

[natitomattis]

I did a small refactor in this test, so we can define a map with all the env changes and the expected test result.

[mloiseleur]

@ivankatliarchuk @mrozentsvayg Wdyt of this PR ? Is there anything else ?

[ivankatliarchuk]

/lgtm

[mrozentsvayg]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

@mrozentsvayg: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

In response to this:

/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[mloiseleur]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ivankatliarchuk, mloiseleur

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:

• OWNERS [mloiseleur]

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