fix: use require instead of t.Fatal(err) in tests/e2e package

[mmorel-35]

Description

This uses testify instead of testing for t.Fatal calls

Related to #18972

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mmorel-35. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io 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.

[mmorel-35]

/assign @spzala

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.71%. Comparing base (3d46df1) to head (f560fe1).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

see 20 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #18821      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.77%   68.71%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35598    35598              
==========================================
- Hits        24483    24461      -22     
- Misses       9685     9709      +24     
+ Partials     1430     1428       -2     

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3d46df1...f560fe1. Read the comment docs.

[mmorel-35]

/assign @ahrtr

[ahrtr]

/ok-to-test

[ahrtr]

This PR is just mechanical changes, but we love small PRs. I will let this PR in, but please try to submit small PR , i.e. < 100 lines of code change as much as you can next time. Thanks.

[ivanvc]

Question: do all of these changes come from this specific linter? There are some formatting changes that look unrelated, but I may be wrong.

[fuweid]

Basically, it looks good.

The pull requests include refactors, for example,

• var => :=
• Two lines => one line
• Adding empty line

For reviewer, if non-related change is small, it's easy to be accepted and review
However, there are too many lines changed not related to that using requires.
My suggestion is that if linter doesn't blame, just keep it as it is and file other pull request for that.

[mmorel-35]

The formatting shouldn't be part of this PR. I hold on this to apply gofumpt first

[mmorel-35]

/retest

[mmorel-35]

/retest

[mmorel-35]

/retest

[mmorel-35]

/retest

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, fuweid, mmorel-35

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 [ahrtr]

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