Availability: Skip bad configurations

[kamalca]

Mismatches in Availability Set requirements and capabilities may be due to test case requirements, so we can skip the test instead of failing.

[kamalca]

@squirrelsc Any suggestions on how to resolve 'Availability.on_before_deployment' is too complex flake error?

I considered making a common function, called something like assert_or_skip(condition: Any, message: str) that would work like an assert statement but raise a SkippedException instead of an assert error. This would remove a level of logic branching and resolve the error.

What are your thoughts? There are complex interactions between ultradisk, availability types, and maximize capability, so it is not easy to break this logic into small pieces.

[squirrelsc]

@squirrelsc Any suggestions on how to resolve 'Availability.on_before_deployment' is too complex flake error?

I considered making a common function, called something like assert_or_skip(condition: Any, message: str) that would work like an assert statement but raise a SkippedException instead of an assert error. This would remove a level of logic branching and resolve the error.

What are your thoughts? There are complex interactions between ultradisk, availability types, and maximize capability, so it is not easy to break this logic into small pieces.

I thought I replied, but lost. Instead of the assert_or_skip, I suggest splitting a meaningful sub-method for this method. The sub-method may be called like _check_configuration_conflict, and move all related content here. The assert_and_skip is easy to misuse, because most skip should happen in test case level. Also, there are many assert methods, like is_true, is_empty, and so on. It's not worth to wrap all of them.

[squirrelsc]

@LiliDeng LGTM