feat(metrics-operator): introduce scoring logic for Analysis evaluations

[odubajDT]

Changes

• introduce structures for storing results of each layer of SLO scoring system
• implement scoring logic in multiple layers
• unit tests

Fixes: #1767

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for keptn-lifecycle-toolkit ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	31a8ff4
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/keptn-lifecycle-toolkit/deploys/64e30b71c46645000837f280
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1872--keptn-lifecycle-toolkit.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1872 (e66ee7c) into main (df874e2) will increase coverage by 0.33%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1872      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.53%   83.87%   +0.33%     
==========================================
  Files         107      141      +34     
  Lines        7077     8588    +1511     
==========================================
+ Hits         5912     7203    +1291     
- Misses        957     1128     +171     
- Partials      208      257      +49     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...-operator/api/v1alpha3/analysisdefinition_types.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../controllers/common/analysis/analysis_evaluator.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...controllers/common/analysis/objective_evaluator.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../controllers/common/analysis/operator_evaluator.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...or/controllers/common/analysis/target_evaluator.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...perator/controllers/common/analysis/types/types.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 32 files with indirect coverage changes

Flag	Coverage Δ
certificate-operator	68.55% <ø> (ø)
component-tests	58.93% <ø> (-0.14%)	⬇️
lifecycle-operator	84.92% <ø> (ø)
metrics-operator	85.37% <100.00%> (?)
scheduler	32.12% <ø> (ø)

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

[bacherfl]

lgtm

done

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[thisthat]

I don't know if this error message makes sense to be stored in the CR 🤔
looking at the code, it seems that this .Error field is not used. Maybe we could propagate the error up so we can log it at the entry point with info about what analysis fails

[odubajDT]

the error is filled when the map of values does not contain the required key and value, therefore we store the error that the value for the objective was not retrieved and pass the result one layer above. Therefore in the end, each ObjectiveResult has an error stored in the structure if it occured

[thisthat]

The struct is only internally used and it is not stored in any CR. However, the field it is not used so I am questioning the utility of storing errors. Furthermore, we are going against Go practices to have the error flow as part of the function return type and instead, we hide that into the returning struct :/

[odubajDT]

But we should store the error, when the value cannot be retrieved. It needs to be stored within the objectiveResult. You are right that we do not need to store the whole error, but just the error message.

If we just return the error as a function return type, we do not have any information in the resulting status why this particular objective has score == 0. We might lose information here then