Correct the issue of adding duplicate eviction tasks

[jwcesign]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
1.apply following yaml:

apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: nginx
  labels:
    app: nginx
spec:
  replicas: 3
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: nginx
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: nginx
    spec:
      containers:
      - image: nginx
        name: nginx
---
apiVersion: policy.karmada.io/v1alpha1
kind: PropagationPolicy
metadata:
  name: nginx-propagation
spec:
  resourceSelectors:
    - apiVersion: apps/v1
      kind: Deployment
      name: nginx
  placement:
    clusterAffinity:
      clusterNames:
        - member1
        - member2
      clusterTolerations:
      - effect: NoExecute
        key: fail-test
        operator: Exists
        tolerationSeconds: 10
    replicaScheduling:
      replicaDivisionPreference: Weighted
      replicaSchedulingType: Divided
      weightPreference:
        staticWeightList:
          - targetCluster:
              clusterNames:
                - member1
            weight: 1
          - targetCluster:
              clusterNames:
                - member2
            weight: 2

2.taint the cluster

karmadactl taint cluster member2 fail-test=:NoExecute

3.check rb

  spec:
    clusters:
    - name: member2
      replicas: 2
    - name: member1
      replicas: 1
    gracefulEvictionTasks:
    - fromCluster: member2
      producer: TaintManager
      reason: TaintUntolerated
      replicas: 2
    - fromCluster: member2
      producer: TaintManager
      reason: TaintUntolerated
      replicas: 2
    - fromCluster: member2
      producer: TaintManager
      reason: TaintUntolerated
      replicas: 2

The tasks will be added multiple times.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #none

Special notes for your reviewer:
@XiShanYongYe-Chang

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

`karmada-controller-manager`: Correct the issue of adding duplicate eviction tasks.

[jwcesign]

/remove-kind bug
/kind cleanup

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3456 (e1b9e17) into master (b118a73) will increase coverage by 1.96%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3456      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   51.78%   53.75%   +1.96%     
==========================================
  Files         210      210              
  Lines       18974    19118     +144     
==========================================
+ Hits         9826    10276     +450     
+ Misses       8605     8290     -315     
- Partials      543      552       +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	53.75% <100.00%> (+1.96%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/apis/work/v1alpha2/binding_types_helper.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

/lgtm

[RainbowMango]

/assign

[RainbowMango]

Generally looks good to me.
It'd be great if you can add a test case.

[RainbowMango]

/lgtm
/approve

@XiShanYongYe-Chang
Do you think we need to skip the cluster during scheduling when the cluster already in eviction tasks?

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango

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 [RainbowMango]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[jwcesign]

Do you think we need to skip the cluster during scheduling when the cluster already in eviction tasks?

Referring to the logic of K8s native scheduling, I think we need to try to schedule without the clusters in eviction tasks first.
if the scheduling fails, then try to schedule with these clusters.