tests: fix status responses size and nil

[clement2026]

As I migrate tests to common framework, I found 2 problems in the following code

1. resp is filled with nil before it is appended
2. --endpoints argument is redundant, as ctl.spawnJsonCmd() has already taken care of it. With this redundant--endpoints, status of one endpoint appears 2 times in epStatus

etcd/tests/framework/e2e/etcdctl.go

Lines 290 to 304 in 4f0e92d

	func (ctl *EtcdctlV3) Status() ([]*clientv3.StatusResponse, error) {
	var epStatus []*struct {
	Endpoint string
	Status *clientv3.StatusResponse
	}
	err := ctl.spawnJsonCmd(&epStatus, "endpoint", "status", "--endpoints", strings.Join(ctl.endpoints, ","))
	if err != nil {
	return nil, err
	}
	resp := make([]*clientv3.StatusResponse, len(epStatus))
	for _, e := range epStatus {
	resp = append(resp, e.Status)
	}
	return resp, err
	}

[spzala]

@clarkfw thanks for the PR. I would appreciate it if you could provide some details in the PR description for these changes and the issue(s) it solves.

[clement2026]

@clarkfw thanks for the PR. I would appreciate it if you could provide some details in the PR description for these changes and the issue(s) it solves.

I've update the comment. By the way, is it better to open an issue before committing a PR like this(bug fix)?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #14299 (7fa88fb) into main (4f0e92d) will decrease coverage by 0.26%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14299      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.58%   75.32%   -0.27%     
==========================================
  Files         456      456              
  Lines       37039    37039              
==========================================
- Hits        27997    27898      -99     
- Misses       7301     7389      +88     
- Partials     1741     1752      +11     

Flag	Coverage Δ
all	75.32% <ø> (-0.27%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
server/proxy/grpcproxy/register.go	69.76% <0.00%> (-20.94%)	⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/interceptor.go	73.43% <0.00%> (-9.38%)	⬇️
client/pkg/v3/fileutil/lock_linux.go	72.22% <0.00%> (-8.34%)	⬇️
client/pkg/v3/tlsutil/tlsutil.go	83.33% <0.00%> (-8.34%)	⬇️
server/storage/mvcc/watchable_store.go	85.14% <0.00%> (-4.72%)	⬇️
server/storage/wal/file_pipeline.go	90.69% <0.00%> (-4.66%)	⬇️
client/v3/concurrency/session.go	88.63% <0.00%> (-4.55%)	⬇️
client/v3/leasing/cache.go	87.77% <0.00%> (-3.89%)	⬇️
server/etcdserver/txn/util.go	75.47% <0.00%> (-3.78%)	⬇️
client/v3/watch.go	91.36% <0.00%> (-2.62%)	⬇️
... and 16 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us.

[spzala]

@clarkfw thanks for the PR. I would appreciate it if you could provide some details in the PR description for these changes and the issue(s) it solves.

I've update the comment. By the way, is it better to open an issue before committing a PR like this(bug fix)?

Thank you @clarkfw No, the issue is not required to open. But, when there is no issue related to the PR, the details provided in the PR description help reviewers to understand the context quickly for the proposed changes.

[clement2026]

@clarkfw thanks for the PR. I would appreciate it if you could provide some details in the PR description for these changes and the issue(s) it solves.

I've update the comment. By the way, is it better to open an issue before committing a PR like this(bug fix)?

Thank you @clarkfw No, the issue is not required to open. But, when there is no issue related to the PR, the details provided in the PR description help reviewers to understand the context quickly for the proposed changes.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, which makes it easier for me to participate in contribution.

[ahrtr]

LGTM

Thank you @clarkfw

[ahrtr]

I see that you made the same change in #14304, so you need to rebase that PR after this one is merged.

[ahrtr]

@spzala This is only test case change, the PR is fixing the golang slice length related issue. For example, the value 10 is actually added as the 3rd element (index: 2) instead of the first element (index: 0). It's a classic error when people handle golang slice.

s := make([]int, 2)
s = append(s, 10)

[spzala]

@spzala This is only test case change, the PR is fixing the golang slice length related issue. For example, the value 10 is actually added as the 3rd element (index: 2) instead of the first element (index: 0). It's a classic error when people handle golang slice.

s := make([]int, 2)
s = append(s, 10)

Ok, lgtm! Thanks @ahrtr @clarkfw I meant to review it after my initial general comment on PR description but coming back to work today from couple of days vacation/long weekend :)

[clement2026]

Thank you for taking the time to review🫰