[RayCluster] Improved the efficiency when checking rayclusters' expectations

[harryge00]

Why are these changes needed?

The current implementation of IsSatisfied in scale_expectation.go , will iterate through all pods in itemsCache. This is not necessary. When one pod fails to meet the expectation, we can return directly. fast-fail means return earlier once a pod's scaling result is not as expected.

Current code:

	for i := range items {
		rp := items[i].(*rayPod)
		pod := &corev1.Pod{}
		isPodSatisfied := false
		// check if pod is scaled correctly
                ...
		if isPodSatisfied {
			if err := r.itemsCache.Delete(items[i]); err != nil {
				panic(err)
			}
		} else {
			// Here we can return directly. No need to continue.
			// It is inefficient especially when
			// we have created lots of pods and few of them are synced from kube-apiserver
			isSatisfied = false
		}
	}

For example, we may create 10 pods, and expect to successfully get the 10 pods. If none of the pods is ready, no need to iterate through the 10 pods every time. Just find one pod is missing and then break.

I also refactored the code, reduced nested if-else conditions.

Related issue number

Checks

• I've made sure the tests are passing.
• Testing Strategy
  • Unit tests
  • Manual tests
  • This PR is not tested :(

[harryge00]

@Eikykun Since you implemented the first version of RayClusterScaleExpectation, could you view ?

[Future-Outlier]

cc @fscnick @machichima @seanlaii for review if you are interested

for more detail, you can refer #2566

[seanlaii]

Thanks for the contribution! Overall LGTM. Once the above comments are addressed, I will approve.

[fscnick]

Thanks for the contribution. LGTM. After the comments are resolved, I will approve.

[harryge00]

@seanlaii @fscnick Thanks for reviewing. I’ve addressed all the points in the conversation.

[seanlaii]

LGTM

[fscnick]

LGTM

[machichima]

LGTM! Thank you

[machichima]

cc @rueian for final review and re-trigger the CI as the failed CI does not seem to related to this PR's change

[Future-Outlier]

cursor review

[cursor]

✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no bugs!