Actually, I looked up the PR adding the "restart case", because it looks like it is not testing restart now, check this: 1341e35#diff-ace35385ec6f5400e8ccbfe8e9f35c2f9573d0fc05889071dc9c4b36e5e975f7R368-R403.

So, it was introduced back when there was SuspendJob feature gate. I think now the name of the test is no longer relevant. We still may keep the test, but I wouldn't use isRestartCase in the name.

Instead, I would suggest to extend the step definition and add wantConditions (replacing the more specific wantStatus and wantReason), wantReady, and wantTerminating.

Let me try to understand(If there is any misunderstanding please tell me, thank you!):

1. Delete the original TestSuspendJobControllerRestart test case, because it does not really test the behavior of the controller restart
2. Keep the TestSuspendJob test case and add more verification fields in the step (remove if tc.isRestartCase part)

like this: 🤔

type step struct {
          flag         bool
          wantActive   int
          wantReady    int32
          wantTerminating int32
          wantConditions []batchv1.JobConditionType
}

Almost, I think we can use batchv1.JobCondition to assert also status and reason.

type step struct {
          flag         bool
          wantActive   int
          wantReady    int32
          wantTerminating int32
          wantConditions []batchv1.JobCondition
}

This looks like 2 separate tests squeezed into one. I would suggest to generalize the step assertions as proposed in the other comment, and mix it into the main body of the test.