Object types

[eguzki]

What

• Policy types

type PolicyType interface {
	GetGVK() schema.GroupVersionKind
	GetInstance() client.Object
	GetList(context.Context, client.Client, ...client.ListOption) ([]Policy, error)
	BackReferenceAnnotationName() string
	DirectReferenceAnnotationName() string
}

• Type interface for all Gateway API types

type Type interface {
	GetGVK() schema.GroupVersionKind
	GetInstance() client.Object
}

• Simplified the Policy interface: it should not have anything related to kuadrant.

Useful types to write common controller mappers and controllers that can be used by any policy type.

Work being done as part of #530

This is part of a series of PR's that will end up with a new controller that will only reconcile limitador limits configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 63.00578% with 64 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.43%. Comparing base (ece13e8) to head (9b65762).
Report is 148 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #777      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.20%   81.43%   +1.22%     
==========================================
  Files          64       77      +13     
  Lines        4492     6206    +1714     
==========================================
+ Hits         3603     5054    +1451     
- Misses        600      782     +182     
- Partials      289      370      +81     

Flag	Coverage Δ
bare-k8s-integration	4.41% <0.00%> (?)
controllers-integration	71.09% <62.42%> (?)
gatewayapi-integration	10.94% <21.96%> (?)
integration	?
istio-integration	55.60% <49.71%> (?)
unit	31.69% <20.80%> (+1.65%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
api/v1beta1 (u)	71.42% <ø> (ø)
api/v1beta2 (u)	85.35% <80.00%> (-6.08%)	⬇️
pkg/common (u)	88.13% <ø> (-0.70%)	⬇️
pkg/istio (u)	72.50% <ø> (-1.41%)	⬇️
pkg/log (u)	94.73% <ø> (ø)
pkg/reconcilers (u)	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg/rlptools (u)	83.64% <ø> (+4.19%)	⬆️
controllers (i)	81.62% <83.47%> (+4.81%)	⬆️

Files	Coverage Δ
controllers/authpolicy_controller.go	83.94% <100.00%> (+3.23%)	⬆️
controllers/dnspolicy_controller.go	79.01% <100.00%> (-4.47%)	⬇️
controllers/ratelimitpolicy_controller.go	82.52% <100.00%> (+8.52%)	⬆️
controllers/tlspolicy_controller.go	73.63% <100.00%> (+6.96%)	⬆️
pkg/library/kuadrant/gateway_wrapper.go	60.56% <100.00%> (-8.27%)	⬇️
pkg/library/kuadrant/referrer.go	88.23% <100.00%> (+10.45%)	⬆️
pkg/library/mappers/event_mapper.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
pkg/library/mappers/gateway.go	75.67% <72.72%> (-24.33%)	⬇️
pkg/library/mappers/httproute.go	82.69% <62.50%> (-17.31%)	⬇️
api/v1alpha1/dnspolicy_types.go	72.91% <66.66%> (-8.91%)	⬇️
... and 4 more

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

[eguzki]

@Boomatang I would appreciate your 👀 on this PR 🙇‍♂️

[Boomatang]

I see what is being done and kinda why it is being done. What I am concerned about is the adding of yet more interfaces and structs that we need to be aware of.

My mind is in two places over wide interfaces compared to deep interfaces. What is your view on the abstraction and abstracting to early?

[eguzki]

I see what is being done and kinda why it is being done. What I am concerned about is the adding of yet more interfaces and structs that we need to be aware of.

My mind is in two places over wide interfaces compared to deep interfaces. What is your view on the abstraction and abstracting to early?

I plan to write common (reusable) controller mappers and generic (reusable) controllers that can be used by any policy type. This is kind of preparation work for it. A building block needed for those common controllers.

[Boomatang]

Looks good to me and is a good stepping stone to something better

[Boomatang]

Comment was to approve, not mark as changes requested