Feat: add expiry date for feature files

[AhmedGrati]

Resolves #857.

This PR adds the expiration feature of feature files. The implemented solution suggests that the expiration date should follow this format:

# +expiry-time=2023-07-28T11:22:33Z

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-nfd ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	47aec15
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-nfd/deploys/64f235c19210d10008468392
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1285--kubernetes-sigs-nfd.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.

[AhmedGrati]

ping @ArangoGutierrez

[marquiz]

@AhmedGrati thank you for the enhancement. Some comments and speculation below. Looks good overall, but some refinements are needed before merging

[marquiz]

/check-cla

[AhmedGrati]

/retest

[AhmedGrati]

/retest

[AhmedGrati]

/retest

[marquiz]

Thanks for the update @AhmedGrati. A few more comments below

[AhmedGrati]

@marquiz Thanks for the review. Updated!

[AhmedGrati]

ping @marquiz.

[marquiz]

Thanks @AhmedGrati, I only had one more small suggestion

@eero-t @ArangoGutierrez do you have anything to add? I think we can squeeze this into v0.14
/milestone v0.14

[eero-t]

Did cursory review.

Besides the file name typo, I wondered whether feature handling has been tested with e.g. 1GB binary file?

I mean, local.go does not size checks, it just reads whole thing in, splits it by newlines, before passing it to feature parsing...

[AhmedGrati]

@marquiz @eero-t Thanks for the review. For the 1GB file test, I didn't actually do that. However, I think it can be optimized by reading the file in chunks. I think that it can be done in another PR. wdyt?

[marquiz]

@marquiz @eero-t Thanks for the review. For the 1GB file test, I didn't actually do that. However, I think it can be optimized by reading the file in chunks. I think that it can be done in another PR. wdyt?

I think that's an issue that should be addressed in a separate PR. The feature files are considered to be from a trusted source so we haven't been too concerned about this. We could put a limit for the maximum size of the file, e.g. 64kB or even 32kB should definitely be enough for a big number of labels and massive comments

[marquiz]

Thanks @AhmedGrati for this enhancement (and @eero-t for the reviews). This now looks good to me

/assign @ArangoGutierrez

[ArangoGutierrez]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: fa8122cb2856045bcfdc01e4704b3b25f6df0b41

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AhmedGrati, ArangoGutierrez, marquiz

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 [ArangoGutierrez,marquiz]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1285 (47aec15) into master (9ed1918) will increase coverage by 1.02%.
Report is 60 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 97.36%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1285      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   28.90%   29.92%   +1.02%     
==========================================
  Files          54       55       +1     
  Lines        7320     7468     +148     
==========================================
+ Hits         2116     2235     +119     
- Misses       4976     4986      +10     
- Partials      228      247      +19     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
source/local/local.go	43.33% <97.36%> (+33.67%)	⬆️

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes