Adding k8s unit tests and some refactoring

[jotak]

Description

No user-facing change / no API change

• Add tests relative to enrichment
• move k8s stuff into k8s package
• Rename "KubeData" as "Informers"

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• [ ] Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• [ ] Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• [ ] Does this PR require product documentation?
  • [ ] If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• [ ] Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • [ ] If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• [ ] Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • [ ] If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • [ ] Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • [ ] Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • [ ] No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

[openshift-ci[bot]]

[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 ask for approval from jotak. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - **[OWNERS](https://github.com/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline/blob/main/OWNERS)** Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: 83 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (40b6948) 65.80% compared to head (2d0f97f) 66.13%. Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/pipeline/transform/kubernetes/enrich.go	52.50%	53 Missing and 4 partials :warning:
...peline/transform/kubernetes/informers/informers.go	16.00%	21 Missing :warning:
...e/transform/kubernetes/informers/informers-mock.go	88.00%	3 Missing :warning:
pkg/pipeline/transform/transform_network.go	33.33%	2 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #578 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 65.80% 66.13% +0.33% ========================================== Files 102 103 +1 Lines 7445 7510 +65 ========================================== + Hits 4899 4967 +68 + Misses 2256 2252 -4 - Partials 290 291 +1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline/pull/578/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=netobserv) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline/pull/578/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=netobserv) | `66.13% <52.02%> (+0.33%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=netobserv#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jotak]

I would have left the k8s function in the transform_network file, kubernetes package being more about informers but having them there also works.

well, kubernetes is named kubernetes so ... :-) perhaps we should name another sub-package informers then But I find it better to have some of the variables in kubernetes being unexported / better isolated.

[OlivierCazade]

Then why not moving the whole rule? This rule is only for kubernetes.

[openshift-ci[bot]]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[jotak]

/approve