Rearrange e2e tests with "provisioner x source type"

[akihikokuroda]

Every provisioner should work with any source type in theory. Most of the source types are tested with the plain provisioner now. So the plain_provisioner_test.go is growing.

It's probably better that each source type is separated in a different go file and at least one test for each provisioner in it ideally. So the xxx_provisioner_test.go can focus on the contents of the manifests instead of the source types.

[joelanford]

I agree! I think @asmacdo is working on improving the individual source unit tests (focusing on git at the moment)

I think the provisioner e2e's should focus mostly on happy path, and coverage should mainly come from unit tests when possible.

[timflannagan]

Does it make sense to enforce this for the core provisioners through a conformance testing suite?

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has become stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. The maintainers of this repo will remove this label during issue triage or it will be removed automatically after an update. Adding the lifecycle/frozen label will cause this issue to ignore lifecycle events.