[CKS] Simplify logic for scaling CKS cluster service offerings

[nvazquez]

Description

This PR improves the scaling of CKS clusters logic with the introduction of the advanced options to specify service offerings per node types from PR #9102.

Originally raised on: #9102 (review)

The following cases for scaling CKS clusters offerings are considered:

1. Create CKS cluster specifying only default/global offering -> Scale CKS cluster offering to a new offering -> All VMs scaled to the new offering
2. Create CKS cluster specifying only default/global offering -> Scale CKS cluster offering for control nodes -> Only control nodes offerings are updated -> Scale CKS cluster offering for worker nodes -> Only worker nodes offerings are updated
3. Create CKS cluster specifying default offering, and also for worker and control nodes -> The worker and control node offerings take precedence over the default offering so VMs are created with the specific node type offering -> Scale CKS cluster default offering -> All VMs service offerings are updated accordingly despite the default offering is the same as before or a new one.

Case 3 using the same default offering:

Before scaling:

(localcloud) 🐱 > list kubernetesclusters id=265f3b8a-f8a7-4439-972e-7bc07f09f91a filter=serviceofferingname,controlofferingname,workerofferingname,
{
  "count": 1,
  "kubernetescluster": [
    {
      "controlofferingname": "Control-Offering",
      "serviceofferingname": "CKS - 2GB",
      "workerofferingname": "Worker-Offering"
    }
  ]
}
(localcloud) 🐱 > list virtualmachines filter=id,name,serviceofferingname,
{
  "count": 2,
  "virtualmachine": [
    {
      "id": "80f80aa9-7389-4783-a425-0a164e0be096",
      "name": "cks-control-1978f42dcf9",
      "serviceofferingname": "Control-Offering"
    },
    {
      "id": "35ac65c6-b001-4757-a40b-d5347e44367d",
      "name": "cks-node-1978f431ec7",
      "serviceofferingname": "Worker-Offering"
    }
  ]
}

After scaling:

(localcloud) 🐱 > list virtualmachines filter=id,name,serviceofferingname,
{
  "count": 2,
  "virtualmachine": [
    {
      "id": "80f80aa9-7389-4783-a425-0a164e0be096",
      "name": "cks-control-1978f42dcf9",
      "serviceofferingname": "CKS - 2GB"
    },
    {
      "id": "35ac65c6-b001-4757-a40b-d5347e44367d",
      "name": "cks-node-1978f431ec7",
      "serviceofferingname": "CKS - 2GB"
    }
  ]
}
(localcloud) 🐱 > list kubernetesclusters id=265f3b8a-f8a7-4439-972e-7bc07f09f91a filter=serviceofferingname,controlofferingname,workerofferingname,
{
  "count": 1,
  "kubernetescluster": [
    {
      "controlofferingname": "CKS - 2GB",
      "serviceofferingname": "CKS - 2GB",
      "workerofferingname": "CKS - 2GB"
    }
  ]
}

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• build/CI
• test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 36 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 16.57%. Comparing base (5b7c3b4) to head (9f9e13c).
Report is 37 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...er/actionworkers/KubernetesClusterScaleWorker.java	0.00%	36 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #11063   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     16.57%   16.57%           
- Complexity    13967    13968    +1     
=========================================
  Files          5743     5743           
  Lines        510468   510468           
  Branches      62073    62069    -4     
=========================================
+ Hits          84616    84617    +1     
+ Misses       416390   416389    -1     
  Partials       9462     9462           

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.90% <ø> (ø)
unittests	17.47% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[nvazquez]

Putting the PR on draft as the current code introduces a regression on the UI operations providing the same offering for one of the node types:

[nvazquez]

Hi @bernardodemarco I have updated the PR - after simplifying the logic the use case you reported on the previous PR indicated that nodes should have been updated as well and I think that is fine, sorry for the confusion. I have updated the PR description with an example of the specific case (number 3)

[nvazquez]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 13861

[nvazquez]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-13582)

[sureshanaparti]

clgtm

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm, @nvazquez can you advice on testing please?

[bernardodemarco]

clgtm, @nvazquez can you advice on testing please?

@DaanHoogland @nvazquez I'll try to test this one ASAP

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14171

[nvazquez]

Hi @DaanHoogland I have presented multiple test cases on the PR description, since 4.21 CKS clusters can have different service offerings per node type and scaling the cluster allows changing the service offering per node type.

To test the PR I would say the cases 1 and 2 should be validated, and for case 3 all the nodes type service offerings should be updated to the default offering in case a CKS cluster is scaled using only a default service offering (btw this operation is only possible through the API, that is why it was addressed separately on this PR).

[DaanHoogland]

Hi @DaanHoogland I have presented multiple test cases on the PR description, since 4.21 CKS clusters can have different service offerings per node type and scaling the cluster allows changing the service offering per node type.

Sorry @nvazquez , I was too quick with my remark. I looked only at the last paragraph of the description and saw it empty.

[bernardodemarco]

lgtm, manually tested it. Verified that the scaling logic is working as expected