fix(test): do not fail pod status check if pod phase is succeeded

[c-ryan-k]

Int tests are currently failing for Akri checks because they have pod states that are False but the code is designed to mark those pods as successful if the overall pod phase is succeeded.

This change fixes the test to reflect the correct code result, but I'm curious if we want to take a look at this method in the future to make checks a bit more precise.

---

This project has adopted the Microsoft Open Source Code of Conduct. For more information see the Code of Conduct FAQ or contact [email protected] with any additional questions or comments.

Thank you for contributing to Azure IoT Operations tooling!

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

General Guidelines

Intent for Production

• It is expected that pull requests made to default or core branches such as dev or main are of production grade. Corollary to this, any merged contributions to these branches may be deployed in a public release at any given time. By checking this box, you agree and commit to the expected production quality of code.

Basic expectations

• If introducing new functionality or modified behavior, are they backed by unit and/or integration tests?
• In the same context as above are command names and their parameter definitions accurate? Do help docs have sufficient content?
• Have all the relevant unit and integration tests pass? i.e. pytest <project root> -vv. Please provide evidence in the form of a screenshot showing a succesful run of tests locally OR a link to a test pipeline that has been run against the change-set.
• Have linter checks passed using the .pylintrc and .flake8 rules? Look at the CI scripts for example usage.
• Have extraneous print or debug statements, commented out code-blocks or code-statements (if any) been removed from the surface area of changes?
• Have you made an entry in HISTORY.rst which concisely explains your user-facing feature or change?

Azure IoT Operations CLI maintainers reserve the right to enforce any of the outlined expectations.

A PR is considered ready for review when all basic expectations have been met (or do not apply).

[digimaun]

This change fixes the test to reflect the correct code result, but I'm curious if we want to take a look at this method in the future to make checks a bit more precise.

More precise checks are appealing, what is the downside

[c-ryan-k]

More precise checks are appealing, what is the downside

I don't think there's a downside, just time to investigate.

It may be situational for some pods which fields can / should be truthy/falsy etc. - I believe this was a patch due to some pods being marked as error status because of a readiness / schedule availability field being marked as false since they were single-run jobs? My memory is a bit fuzzy, @Elsie4ever do you remember the details behind this fix?