Add ginkgo dependency for e2e tests

[bryantbiggs]

Description

• Add ginkgo dependency for e2e tests

⚠️ is this the correct way to resolve this dependency requirement for the e2e tests?

Temporarily added here to satisfy this error:

INTEGRATION_TEST_FOCUS="" ./eksctl-integration-test -test.v -ginkgo.v
2025/02/26 00:41:46 [0] exec: "ginkgo": executable file not found in $PATH
[0] Running: ginkgo --no-color --timeout=5h0m0s -tags integration -v --show-node-events --poll-progress-after 30m integration/tests/cluster_api/... -- -test.v -ginkgo.v
make: *** [Makefile:114: integration-test-no-build] Error 1

Checklist

• Added tests that cover your change (if possible)
• Added/modified documentation as required (such as the README.md, or the userdocs directory)
• Manually tested
• Made sure the title of the PR is a good description that can go into the release notes
• (Core team) Added labels for change area (e.g. area/nodegroup) and kind (e.g. kind/improvement)

BONUS POINTS checklist: complete for good vibes and maybe prizes?! 🤯

• Backfilled missing tests for code in same general area 🎉
• Refactored something and made the world a better place 🌟

[dims]

deferring to @TiberiuGC / @cheeseandcereal

[cheeseandcereal]

It looks like this issue is due to merging this: #8242

Are there any other tools we use there in any of our makefiles that might have been accidentally removed?

[bryantbiggs]

@cheeseandcereal I don't think so - based on this it looks like its just the gingko dep that is missing, I temporarily re-added it here to verify and see if anything else failed due to something missing. Tests are nearly all passing, but seeing same failures as what is on main from @dims run here.

[cheeseandcereal]

Ok, seems good for now then

[cheeseandcereal]

Do we need to update the build image tag for this? Or are we ok just leaving the old one for now until we remove it. Just asking because we'd also have to update it in the ci repo as well and coordinate that. But with tests already failing there, I'm not even sure if this necessarily works or not, and looks like we're planning to remove it (hopefully) shortly anyways. Thoughts?

[bryantbiggs]

ya thats a tricky one - I didn't update it at first but it fails the required check then https://github.com/eksctl-io/eksctl/actions/runs/13545376316/job/37855584038?pr=8251

but if we can bypass and then hopefully get to where we can drop this build image coordination stuff, that would be ideal. I'm open to either way as long as we can get closer to dropping the build image update/coordination steps (we seem to be quite close)

[bryantbiggs]

closing in favor of #8257 to revert