Merge elemental installer

[davidcassany]

This PR includes the former ros-installer code in this repository. ros-installer is then called elemental-installer.

Related to #7

[kkaempf]

lgtm
I will adapt isv:Rancher:Elemental/elemental-operator accordingly

[kkaempf]

Will you do the "rancheros" -> "elemental" renames in this PR or a separate one ?

[kkaempf]

https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/isv:Rancher:Elemental/elemental-operator is adapted and building fine ;-)

[davidcassany]

Will you do the "rancheros" -> "elemental" renames in this PR or a separate one ?

Gonna do it here, I was trying to see of if there was some way from elemental repository to consume this right away and attempt some manual checks, but probably is faster going through a regular build using the OSB image.

Changed my mind, see all rancheros references are were already part of the elemental-operator, there were no rancheros references in ros-installer code, hence I prefere to do the rename in a different PR just not to mix things and have a clean history. Looks like many things need to be addressed in operator and we are already few people around this code. Better step by step.

[davidcassany]

I consider this ready to be merged. It is not actually tested yet, it is just a port form ros-installer, it builds and former ros-installer tests are all passing. Changes in former elemental-operator are really cosmetic, just a little project re-structure to move former main.go into a subfolder.

[Itxaka]

This requires changes to the goreleaser so it can build both binaries.
also to the Dockerfile so it picks the newer binary

[Itxaka]

should we also build the installer here as a different binary? Or is that for a post PR?

[davidcassany]

I thought doing it in a post PR

[Itxaka]

Not sure what I wrote here lol

[davidcassany]

This requires changes to the goreleaser so it can build both binaries. also to the Dockerfile so it picks the newer binary

Yip, thanks! Now I just adapted it to keep releasing and building the elemental-operator as it was before. I have not yet included a releaser for both neither included a docker image for elemental-installer

[Itxaka]

lint,unit and e2e tests are being fixed in a different PR so it should not be a blocker to merge this.

Also we should consider following up on this with a config for the coverage to treat the installer and the operator as different packages, as Im pretty sure the installer has a 3% coverage or something like that lol

[kkaempf]

ship it !

[Itxaka]

umm, something wrong with the tests? Or its the test suite that big LOL

[davidcassany]

umm, something wrong with the tests? Or its the test suite that big LOL

Oh, I think these tests can't be executed in parallell 😞

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@211ad46). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #20   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   43.27%           
=======================================
  Files           ?        8           
  Lines           ?      647           
  Branches        ?        0           
=======================================
  Hits            ?      280           
  Misses          ?      348           
  Partials        ?       19           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 211ad46...6d91be5. Read the comment docs.

[davidcassany]

@Itxaka allright, now tets are passing and I am wondering about merging it, however probably #18 should be merged first and then rebase this one, which is smaller. What you think?

[Itxaka]

@davidcassany nah, Im still working on that one, will take some time still so lets merge this, I will rebase and fix on my side!

[davidcassany]

Ok then merging this one, then we can, at least, start building the elemental-installer binary

[kkaempf]

We should probably tag it with a version > 0.1.0 (last ros-installer release) !?

[davidcassany]

We should probably tag it with a version > 0.1.0 (last ros-installer release) !?

yes makes sense, I think we could tag something like 0.1.y and then tag v0.2.x once we have all the renaming and smoke tests in place.

[kkaempf]

Please do, it makes my packaging task a bit easier 😉