[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign embik for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Hi @ayetealab. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kcp-dev member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Hey there, thanks for your contribution.

I think the added logging is a bit excessive, maybe a leftover from your development efforts?

More importantly though I am worried about the semantics behind this. It's very easy for the sync agent to be configured to merge objects from many namespaces into a single namespace, and at that point it becomes basically random which workspace/namespace's labels/annotations you copy to the destination. Even worse: By doing this, endusers could, in kcp, set nasty labels and annotations that could interfere with for example policy frameworks like Kyverno on the service provider side (just imagine an enduser setting an imaginary kyverno.io/prevent-deletion annotation and suddenly processes on the service cluster would stop working as expected).

I can see how this can be useful in some circumstances, but I would not make this the default behaviour. Instead I would add a new option to PublishedResources, maybe spec.namespace.metadata.copy (bool) to allow admins to opt-in to this behaviour only if and when they know that their mutation rules will work properly here (i.e. no 2 namespaces are merged together).

I concur with what @xrstf said, this needs to be an optional feature as its potentially problematic and it should require explicit configuration. Since api-syncagent handles permission claims in the target APIExport, it would be good to have a flag (as suggested above) and then let api-syncagent also create a permission claim for namespaces. A namespace permission claim being the "flag" to toggle this feature is a bit out of place with other optional features.