WIP: add the performance-addon-operator code

[cynepco3hahue]

TODO:

• e2e tests, not all of them but at least part of them.
• add owners file for the PAO component
• disabling the PAO operator based on a ManagementState
• reporting PAO operator status via co/node-tuning

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cynepco3hahue
To complete the pull request process, please assign jmencak after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @jmencak in a comment when ready.

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

[jmencak]

Thanks you for the PR, Artyom, it is a good start. In order to pass the verification, you need to fix your formatting. See "make verify" and it will tell you which files to fix.

I haven't gone through all of the code, just the interface and added a few comments. PAO commpiled fine. I'd really like to get rid of the dependency on sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime if possible.

[jmencak]

Do we really need sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime?

[cynepco3hahue]

We are using it a lot under the PAO controller. In general, it makes it much easier to write a controller with it, without the need to specify separate clients for each API type, informers, and listers.

[jmencak]

It took me quite a bit of effort to get away from operator-sdk and controller-runtime in the past. Perhaps things are better now, but it used to be quite hard (nearly impossible) to keep other k8s dependencies up-to-date when I was using those two dependencies in the past. How easy/difficult is it now? I.e. use the current 1.22 k8s deps?

[jmencak]

Why has this file changed?

[cynepco3hahue]

I just ran the make crd-schema-gen.

[jmencak]

Perhaps at some point add performance-addon-operator-bin target?

[cynepco3hahue]

For sure, I will do it once will add PAO dockerfiles.

[jmencak]

$ make verify
verify-gofmt: ERROR: gofmt failed on the following files:
./pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/register.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/components/manifestset/manifestset.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/components/tuned/tuned.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/performanceprofile_controller_suite_test.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/performanceprofile_controller_test.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/status.go

For details, run: gofmt -d -s ./pkg/apis/performanceprofile/v2/register.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/components/manifestset/manifestset.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/components/tuned/tuned.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/performanceprofile_controller_suite_test.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/performanceprofile_controller_test.go ./pkg/performance-addon-controller/status.go

make: *** [Makefile:116: verify-gofmt] Error 1

[jmencak]

Another thing we should consider is modifying the OWNERS file to add approvers from the PAO team.

[jmencak]

Another two issues to solve that currently come to mind:

• disabling the PAO operator based on a ManagementState
• reporting PAO operator status via co/node-tuning ?

[cynepco3hahue]

Thanks you for the PR, Artyom, it is a good start. In order to pass the verification, you need to fix your formatting. See "make verify" and it will tell you which files to fix.

I haven't gone through all of the code, just the interface and added a few comments. PAO commpiled fine. I'd really like to get rid of the dependency on sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime if possible.

A lot of thanks for the initial review, we are using a lot sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime under the PAO controller, it makes it much easier to configure the controller and I can see it pretty popular among OpenShift repositories.

[openshift-ci]

@cynepco3hahue: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-upgrade	bd2d691	link	/test e2e-upgrade

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[openshift-ci]

@cynepco3hahue: PR needs rebase.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[openshift-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[yanirq]

@cynepco3hahue you can close this PR in favor of #302 or keep it for additional references in the near future (maybe even as closed if we still have the code)

[cynepco3hahue]

close in favor of #302.