Use k8s Ansible role for CP4D

[fketelaars]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Currently, the deployer uses oc commands for managing definitions in OpenShift. Sometimes this involves running oc command in a wait loop, until a condition has been met.

The k8s roles in Ansible provide a much more elegant way to apply yaml files, wait for conditions, etc.

Describe the solution you'd like Research how k8s role can be used for CP4D. Look at the CP4BA code for examples.

[fketelaars]

Tasks:

• [ ] Validate that k8s roles such as kubernetes.core.k8s and kubernetes.core.k8s_info can be used instead of oc
• [ ] The k8s roles should use $STATUS_DIR/openshift/kubeconfig for authentication
• [ ] Propose changes to the deployer code in this issue

[aishwaryapradeep01]

• Explored kubernetes.core.k8s modules. There are modules for specific tasks - for example, json patch operations can be done with the k8s_json_patch module; both oc and non-oc commands can be run within a pod with the kubernetes.core.k8s_exec.
• Targeting oc replacements in automation roles: 50-install-cloud-pak and 60-configure-cloud-pak
• Understood two ways that authentication can be done with k8s roles: using "$STATUS_DIR/openshift/kubeconfig" declared in K8S_AUTH_KUBECONFIG environment variable or specifying it in the kubeconfig parameter of the k8s module
• Explored CP4BA for examples of kubernetes.core.k8s_info and kubernetes.core.k8s_exec implementation. The project was structured differently with pod based oc command executions. Some instances hardcode the pod name, some declare a pod with the kubernetes.core.k8s_info and then use those pods with the exec module.
• In order to use the exec module - knowledge of the namespace and the pod a particular cp4d script is run in would be required.
• Tried some sample changes for extracting cp4d routes with the info module; replacing oc commands with use of the exec and info modules: https://github.com/IBM/cloud-pak-deployer/commit/049660894ab4bc570a3d761b67ea5774e3726908. The deployer was 'successful' with these changes. Before proceeding to make further changes, would like confirmation whether this is the right way to go about this.
• Need further discussion regarding scope and feasibility. Parking this issue for now as discussed.