fix: applicationset reduce redundant reconciles (#12457)

[rumstead]

fixes #12457

Note on DCO:

If the DCO action in the integration test fails, one or more of your commits are not signed off. Please click on the Details link next to the DCO action for instructions on how to resolve this.

Checklist:

• Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
• The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
• I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
• I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
• Does this PR require documentation updates?
• I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
• Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
• I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
• I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
• My build is green (troubleshooting builds).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 86.79% and project coverage change: +0.04 🎉

Comparison is base (82f006c) 48.94% compared to head (72f96e0) 48.99%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #12480      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   48.94%   48.99%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         246      246              
  Lines       42435    42486      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits        20770    20816      +46     
- Misses      19555    19559       +4     
- Partials     2110     2111       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...cationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go	63.44% <86.79%> (+1.40%)	⬆️

... and 1 file 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.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[rumstead]

TODO: Add tests

[crenshaw-dev]

@rumstead I just remembered... when progressive syncs are enabled, and when the applicationset has a sync strategy, we should trigger reconciles on changes to certain parts of the status field. Specifically, looks like we care about

• status.health.status
• status.sync.status
• status.operationstate
• status.operationstate.phase

@wmgroot am I missing anything?

[rumstead]

@rumstead I just remembered... when progressive syncs are enabled, and when the applicationset has a sync strategy, we should trigger reconciles on changes to certain parts of the status field. Specifically, looks like we care about

• status.health.status
• status.sync.status
• status.operationstate
• status.operationstate.phase

@wmgroot am I missing anything?

Great catch. It took me a while to understand the different statuses.

The statuses on the applicationset track the statuses of the owned applications. The owned applications have their statuses updated by the application controller. Thus, when the application controller updates one of those statuses, we would want to reconcile to trigger the next step in the progressive sync.

[wmgroot]

I believe those will cover what the Progressive Syncs feature needs.

argo-cd/applicationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go

Lines 978 to 987 in df3bd34

	func statusStrings(app argov1alpha1.Application) (string, string, string) {
	healthStatusString := string(app.Status.Health.Status)
	syncStatusString := string(app.Status.Sync.Status)
	operationPhaseString := ""
	if app.Status.OperationState != nil {
	operationPhaseString = string(app.Status.OperationState.Phase)
	}
	return healthStatusString, syncStatusString, operationPhaseString
	}

[wmgroot]

Assuming Status.OperationState covers Status.OperationState.StartedAt we should be good.

argo-cd/applicationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go

Line 1031 in df3bd34

if operationPhaseString == "Succeeded" && app.Status.OperationState.StartedAt.After(currentAppStatus.LastTransitionTime.Time) {

Edit: Looks like it isn't covered, I added a comment.

[rumstead]

@crenshaw-dev just wanted to see if you had any bandwidth soon to review the bug fix?

[crenshaw-dev]

Small things

[crenshaw-dev]

/cherry-pick release-2.7

[crenshaw-dev]

@rumstead how would you feel about me just cherry-picking this back to 2.7? If it behaves, and folks later want it picked further-back, I'd be happy to do that.

[rumstead]

@rumstead how would you feel about me just cherry-picking this back to 2.7? If it behaves, and folks later want it picked further-back, I'd be happy to do that.

I know I wouldn't mind this picked back to 2.4 (of the appset controller). To be on the safer route, I think it makes sense to soak in 2.7.

[crenshaw-dev]

Word, let's give it some time in 2.7 and then look at picking it further back. Thanks!

[crenshaw-dev]

Looks great to me.