Add Events for the Maintenance Process

[razo7]

• Add maintenance events and functions for verifying events' existence.
• Fail Maintenance on Missing Node
• Use events for verification of the maintenance flow in e2e

ECOPROJECT-1745 ECOPROJECT-1898

[openshift-ci[bot]]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR. You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci[bot]]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: razo7

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - ~~[OWNERS](https://github.com/medik8s/node-maintenance-operator/blob/main/OWNERS)~~ [razo7] Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/hold The PR would be better reviewed in smaller chunks, so I am moving the refactoring of unit-test and reconciling to different PRs, and keeping the current one for adding the events (needs the unit-test refactoring).

• Reconcile refactor https://github.com/medik8s/node-maintenance-operator/pull/118
• Controllers unit-test refactor https://github.com/medik8s/node-maintenance-operator/pull/117

[razo7]

After rebasing it is ready for review

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[clobrano]

Why are we not using common api for events?

[razo7]

Why are we not using common api for events?

Because it is kind of meant for remediation events (include [remediation] in the message), and here is for maintenance events. We could modify that in common, but it will require some adaptations in the remediator repos afterward. I didn't think it was worth the effort but if you disagree then I would recommend first generalizing the events common API.

[clobrano]

(include [remediation] in the message)

I understand your point. The idea of the [remediation] tag was to allow filter and collect all the messages from our operators (it was [medik8s] at the beginning), but I understand that can cause misunderstanding now. We might need to reflect on a better tag :thinking:

[razo7]

We might need to reflect on a better tag 🤔

I agree. Something for a follow up :)

[slintes]

We might need to reflect on a better tag 🤔

I agree. Something for a follow up :)

I don't think so. The idea was to filter remediation events easily indeed, not medik8s

[clobrano]

I don't think so. The idea was to filter remediation events easily indeed, not medik8s

Then I misunderstood

[mshitrit]

/lgtm /hold Giving a chance for others to add more comments. Feel free to unhold.

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[razo7]

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

[clobrano]

/lgtm Giving a chance to get-more/close-pending reviews /hold

[razo7]

/retest

[razo7]

No pending reviews or new comments, so I am upholding /unhold