⚠️ WIP: ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates

[dtfranz]

Fixing some missing flags and godoc comments brought up via API review.

Reviewer Checklist

• API Go Documentation
• Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• Comprehensive Commit Messages
• Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f417730
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/6989b3950ef34a0008a22151
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2491--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign tmshort for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[dtfranz]

/hold

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 69.82%. Comparing base (1624bed) to head (f417730).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2491   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.82%   69.82%           
=======================================
  Files         102      102           
  Lines        8496     8497    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         5932     5933    +1     
  Misses       2091     2091           
  Partials      473      473           

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	46.16% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
experimental-e2e	12.89% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unit	57.98% <75.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[pedjak]

I would expect additional validation tests to add, given that we added a few more restrictions/checks in this PR. Like for checking min/max size of given arrays, etc.

[pedjak]

should we also set the min number of phases to 1?

[dtfranz]

Sure, unless we can think of a genuinely useful reason to create a no-op CER? I can't think of one though.

[dtfranz]

Update: Looks like we've intentionally built in the ability to have phases initially unset, and allow the normally immutable list to be updated once. If we want to preserve that, we can't set the minimum length to 1 with omitempty present. Removing omitempty removes our ability to leave it unset. Is it vital that we keep this in place?

[perdasilva]

While we only use inline objects, it's ok to set a minimum. When we move to sharding, it could be that we'll want to create the ClusterExtensionRevision object first, then create the shards with the ownerref, then update the revision with the shard refs.

[joelanford]

Here's the helm chunked secret implementation: https://github.com/operator-framework/helm-operator-plugins/blob/f1e4eaf3b3924d3339dda2eee7f4520c47fd6162/pkg/storage/chunked.go#L62-L90

There we precompute everything, then:

1. Create the immutable index object with all of the chunk references pre-filled
2. Create the immutable chunks with owner refs to the index

We can do the same with the CER right?

1. Make its phases fully immutable
2. Generate the phase object contents and figure out what the names are going to be so we can pre-fill references in the CER
3. Generate the CER with the phase object references pre-filled
4. Generate the phase objects with the CER ownerRef

That way:

1. If we try to read the phases from the CER after 3, but before 4, we correctly get an error instead of incorrectly assuming there are no phases
2. If the CER is deleted between 3 and 4, we'll end up putting an ownerref on the phase objects that for an object that is already deleted and garbage collect will automatically delete the phase objects.
3. Phases are immutable and create-only and we don't have to handle errors that could occur on an attempt to update the phases.

[pedjak]

what is purpose of prepending this field with Inline prefix?

[dtfranz]

I did this as a result of @perdasilva 's comment here

let's also call .spec.phases something like .spec.inlinePhases and reserve phases for when we have the sharding done. This way we won't change the serialization in a breaking way later on.