[E2E] Add new test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint

Description of the test

This is an API level test to ensure that the ability to define Custom Server Hook errors messages https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/server_hooks.html#custom-error-messages is being respected.

This is part of an effort to avoid future regression in this space as part of #362666 (closed)

NB - The use of the tag API endpoint in this scenario is somewhat arbitrary as many events can trigger a prereceive hook but it's not feasible for now to test this scenario for every single action that may trigger such an event.

New Test Case: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/quality/test_cases/369053

Checklist

• Confirm the test has a testcase: tag linking to an existing test case in the test case project.
• Note if the test is intended to run in specific scenarios. If a scenario is new, add a link to the MR that adds the new scenario.
• Follow the end-to-end tests style guide and best practices.
• Use the appropriate RSpec metadata tag(s).
• Most resources will be cleaned up via the general cleanup task. Check that is successful, or ensure resources are cleaned up in the test:
  • New resources have api_get_path and api_delete_path implemented if possible.
  • If any resource cannot be deleted in the general delete task, make sure it is ignored.
  • If any resource cannot be deleted in the general delete task, remove it in the test (e.g., in an after block).
• Ensure that no transient bugs are hidden accidentally due to the usage of waits and reloads.
• Verify the tags to ensure it runs on the desired test environments.
• If this MR has a dependency on another MR, such as a GitLab QA MR, specify the order in which the MRs should be merged.
• (If applicable) Create a follow-up issue to document the special setup necessary to run the test: ISSUE_LINK
• If the test requires an admin's personal access token, ensure that the test passes on your local environment with and without the GITLAB_QA_ADMIN_ACCESS_TOKEN provided.

changed milestone to %15.3

added QA Quality test typemaintenance labels

assigned to @john.mcdonnell

Suggested Reviewers (beta)

The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.

You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign /assign_reviewer @user1.

Suggested Reviewers
@rspeicher, @aqualls, @a_mcdonald, @dchevalier2, @mlapierre

If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923.

Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".

added 261 commits

• c9c7fb4c...c1032880 - 260 commits from branch master
• 3316fc0f - Add test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint

Compare with previous version

changed title from Add test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint to [E2E ] Add new test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint

	1 Message
	CHANGELOG missing: If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog. If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the EE: true trailer to your commit message. If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
QA	Carlo Catimbang (@carlocatimbang) (UTC+8, 4 hours behind @john.mcdonnell)	Ramya Authappan (@at.ramya) (UTC+5.5, 6.5 hours behind @john.mcdonnell)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

changed title from [E2E ] Add new test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint to [E2E] Add new test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint

mentioned in issue #362666 (closed)

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

review-qa-blocking: test report for 3316fc0f

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                     suites summary                                      |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                                    | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create                             | 24     | 0      | 1       | 23    | 25    | ❗     |
| Manage                             | 38     | 0      | 2       | 40    | 40    | ❗     |
| Protect                            | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Plan                               | 47     | 0      | 1       | 47    | 48    | ❗     |
| Verify                             | 14     | 0      | 1       | 14    | 15    | ❗     |
| Feature flag handler sanity checks | 9      | 0      | 0       | 9     | 9     | ❗     |
| Version sanity check               | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Secure                             | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Configure                          | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                              | 136    | 0      | 7       | 137   | 143   | ❗     |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

review-qa-all: test report for 3316fc0f

expand test summary

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                              suites summary                               |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Manage               | 63     | 2      | 4       | 34    | 69    | ❌     |
| Create               | 117    | 0      | 12      | 18    | 129   | ❗     |
| Release              | 5      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 5     | ✅     |
| Secure               | 19     | 0      | 2       | 12    | 21    | ❗     |
| Fulfillment          | 0      | 0      | 13      | 0     | 13    | ➖     |
| Verify               | 28     | 0      | 2       | 7     | 30    | ❗     |
| Plan                 | 6      | 0      | 0       | 1     | 6     | ❗     |
| Package              | 0      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 3     | ➖     |
| Product Intelligence | 1      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Configure            | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 239    | 2      | 39      | 72    | 280   | ❌     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

package-and-qa: test report for 3316fc0f

expand test summary

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                              suites summary                               |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create               | 927    | 1      | 37      | 2     | 965   | ❌     |
| Plan                 | 332    | 0      | 0       | 0     | 332   | ✅     |
| Verify               | 254    | 0      | 18      | 0     | 272   | ✅     |
| Manage               | 676    | 0      | 18      | 80    | 694   | ❗     |
| Version sanity check | 0      | 0      | 6       | 0     | 6     | ➖     |
| Secure               | 126    | 0      | 12      | 24    | 138   | ❗     |
| Fulfillment          | 14     | 0      | 67      | 2     | 81    | ❗     |
| Configure            | 1      | 0      | 18      | 0     | 19    | ✅     |
| Package              | 161    | 0      | 21      | 20    | 182   | ❗     |
| Product Intelligence | 13     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 13    | ✅     |
| Release              | 30     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 30    | ✅     |
| Protect              | 12     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 12    | ✅     |
| Enablement:Search    | 10     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 11    | ✅     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 2556   | 1      | 198     | 128   | 2755  | ❌     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

• The gitlab-qa-mirror downstream pipeline for !93509 (3316fc0f) failed!
• The gitlab-qa-mirror downstream pipeline for !93509 (339acfda) passed.
• The gitlab-qa-mirror downstream pipeline for !93509 (e4e41c95) failed!

requested review from @carlocatimbang

Hi @carlocatimbang - would you be able to review this new E2E test.

Thanks for clarifying @john.mcdonnell. LGTM

approved this merge request

requested review from @chloeliu

removed review request for @chloeliu

@john.mcdonnell - please see the following guidance and update this merge request.

	1 Warning
	Please add a subtype label to this merge request.

If you have added a type label and do not feel the purpose of this merge request matches one of the subtypes labels, please resolve this discussion.

added 1 commit

• 339acfda - Update change_path method name to be more concise

Compare with previous version

added maintenancetest-gap label

added 2532 commits

• 339acfda...3a6202d5 - 2529 commits from branch master
• b1220753 - Add test for Custom Server Hooks on Create Tag API Endpoint
• 284deeed - Update change_path method name to be more concise
• e4e41c95 - Update formatting for new rubocop rules

Compare with previous version

requested review from @chloeliu

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

merged

@chloeliu, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:

1. Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
2. Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
3. Set the merge request to merge when pipeline succeeds.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.

mentioned in commit 2a2a3b9e

added workflowstaging-canary label

added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label

added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label

added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label

added releasedcandidate label

added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label