bump the name of the broker on each iter

[vaikas]

Fixes ##4715

For example here:
https://github.com/knative/eventing/runs/1677836817?check_suite_focus=true

    broker_defaults_webhook_test.go:132: 
        	Error Trace:	broker_defaults_webhook_test.go:132
        	            				util.go:51
        	            				wait.go:211
        	            				wait.go:399
        	            				util.go:50
        	            				broker_defaults_webhook_test.go:112
        	Error:      	Expected nil, but got: &errors.StatusError{ErrStatus:v1.Status{TypeMeta:v1.TypeMeta{Kind:"Status", APIVersion:"v1"}, ListMeta:v1.ListMeta{SelfLink:"", ResourceVersion:"", Continue:"", RemainingItemCount:(*int64)(nil)}, Status:"Failure", Message:"brokers.eventing.knative.dev \"xyz-0\" already exists", Reason:"AlreadyExists", Details:(*v1.StatusDetails)(0xc0021758c0), Code:409}}

Proposed Changes

• When re-trying to create a Broker the name must not be the same or it will fail on subsequent tries because the Broker already exists.

Release Note

- :bug: Fix bug #4715 

Docs

[slinkydeveloper]

Makes sense to me, let's see if the test pass.

I think the reason why we see segfault more than properly failing with that error is that we use assert. at the line above, that doesn't fail the test immediately. Should it be replaced with require. instead?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4716 (6cbd082) into master (3783706) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4716   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.07%   81.07%           
=======================================
  Files         291      291           
  Lines        8216     8216           
=======================================
  Hits         6661     6661           
  Misses       1154     1154           
  Partials      401      401           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3783706...6cbd082. Read the comment docs.

[pierDipi]

n++ was deleted during a refactoring 996443c#diff-d5ffd7ccedaa63b719888c0fdffa388fc8527e396063f47c86d982d8403290d0L111

Makes sense to me, let's see if the test pass.

I think the reason why we see segfault more than properly failing with that error is that we use assert. at the line above, that doesn't fail the test immediately. Should it be replaced with require. instead?

#4717

[slinkydeveloper]

/lgtm
/approve

[knative-prow-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: slinkydeveloper, vaikas

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:

• test/OWNERS [slinkydeveloper,vaikas]

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

[xtreme-sameer-vohra]

Makes sense to me, let's see if the test pass.

I think the reason why we see segfault more than properly failing with that error is that we use assert. at the line above, that doesn't fail the test immediately. Should it be replaced with require. instead?

Using a require rather than assert makes sense as the check is more for a test setup which should fail immediately rather than a result assertion (where there might be multiple assertions)