🐛 Use the watch filter label when watching resources

[fiunchinho]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Some of the reconcilers keep reconciling resources that don't have the watch filter label.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @fiunchinho. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[enxebre]

We should probably add the same predicates.ResourceNotPausedAndHasFilterLabel(ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx), r.WatchFilterValue) blow in the watch in line 121

[fiunchinho]

line 121 contains

predicates.All(ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx),
			predicates.ClusterUnpausedAndInfrastructureReady(ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx)),
			predicates.ResourceHasFilterLabel(ctrl.LoggerFrom(ctx), r.WatchFilterValue),
		)

so it should be already covered, shouldn't it?

[enxebre]

/ok-to-test

Thanks @fiunchinho, I dropped some cosmetic suggestions but this make sense to me. I'm curious about the use case why you need this?

[enxebre]

Thanks @fiunchinho!
Orthogonal to this PR we should reconcile naming unPaused vs notPaused #5361

/lgtm

[fiunchinho]

/assign @fabriziopandini

[fabriziopandini]

Q: Should we apply this change to to controllers in controllers/topology too?

[fiunchinho]

Q: Should we apply this change to to controllers in controllers/topology too?

I think all controllers there already use the watch filter label.

[fabriziopandini]

@fiunchinho thanks for checking controllers/topology

/lgtm
@vincepri do we want to get this in v1beta1 or wait till the release is out? what about backport to v1alpha4?

[sbueringer]

/lgtm

[vincepri]

Let's get this merged and backported to 0.4?

/cherrypick release-0.4

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@vincepri: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-0.4 in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

Let's get this merged and backported to 0.4?

/cherrypick release-0.4

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[vincepri]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vincepri

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 [vincepri]

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

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@vincepri: new pull request created: #5379

In response to this:

Let's get this merged and backported to 0.4?

/cherrypick release-0.4

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.