integration_test: Create helpers to initialize tests with custom indexes

[chriskim06]

Two changes here:

• WithIndex -> WithDefaultIndex
• added WithCustomIndex function that does the cloning from the default index

I wasn't really sure if WithCustomIndex should call initializeIndex if it hasn't been initialized yet. It would clean up the code so that people don't have to call WithDefaultIndex().WithCustomIndex("foo") but I was worried that the cloning of krew-index was a little too hidden this way.

If I'm overthinking it let me know and I can change it up so that WithCustomIndex initializes krew-index if it hasn't been initialized yet.

Fixes #565
Related issue: #566

/area multi-index

[ahmetb]

I think this mostly LGTM, and I wouldn't mind if WithCustomIndex() failed with error if default index is not initialized.

Also WithCustomIndex() name isn't the best IMO, it doesn't indicate that it's created by mirroring the default index. I'm open to other proposals.

[chriskim06]

How about WithCustomIndexFromDefault? Its kind of a wordy/long function name but I think it captures the intent behind it (new custom index "from" default index).

I thought I'd just throw out the most obvious correction to what I had to get your opinion on that, but I'll keep giving this some thought throughout the day.

[ahmetb]

We (maintainers) read the tests so it's fine. it also now makes sense why WithDefaultIndex is there :)

[chriskim06]

Ok I'll change it to that in a bit

[chriskim06]

Here's something a little strange. The integration tests took 75 seconds to run here, but the action that got launched in my fork only took 36 seconds.

Also forgot to mention but I haven't seen it take that long locally either.

[ahmetb]

Could be anything. If it's one off, nothing to worry, could be throttling (by repo, by org, global). But if it repeats consistently after merged, then we should probably investigate.

[corneliusweig]

LGTM, just two minor nits.

[corneliusweig]

Suggested change

	enabled = true
	}
	}
	return enabled
	return true
	}
	}
	return false

[corneliusweig]

I think it's worth explaining why we want this testutil in the comment. This is another good reason to move this logic into a function, because it gives us a good place where we can document this.

[ahmetb]

/lgtm
/approve
Thank you. 🙏

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahmetb, chriskim06

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 [ahmetb]

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