fixed using reference to loop iterator

[shivanshuraj1333]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Current code incorrectly uses for loop and passes wrong value as reference
Guide to refer https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CommonMistakes#using-reference-to-loop-iterator-variable

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #105427

Special notes for your reviewer:

Please refer to sample code to understand the bug https://goplay.space/#TIT_IZEAEud

package main

import "fmt"

type st struct {
	it []string
}

func main() {
	rp := &st{[]string{"value1", "value2"}}
	ownedReplicaSets1 := make([]*string, 0, len(rp.it))
	ownedReplicaSets2 := make([]*string, 0, len(rp.it))

	// similar to current implementation
	for _, t := range rp.it {
		ownedReplicaSets1 = append(ownedReplicaSets1, &t)
	}

	fmt.Println(ownedReplicaSets1)
	fmt.Println(*ownedReplicaSets1[0], *ownedReplicaSets1[1])

	// similar new change
	for i := range rp.it {
		ownedReplicaSets2 = append(ownedReplicaSets2, &rp.it[i])
	}

	fmt.Println(ownedReplicaSets2)
	fmt.Println(*ownedReplicaSets2[0], *ownedReplicaSets2[1])
}

output:
value2 value2
[0xc000054020 0xc000054030]
value1 value2

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NA

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[k8s-ci-robot]

@shivanshu1333: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

[shivanshuraj1333]

/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd

[shivanshuraj1333]

/kind cleanup

[aojea]

/lgtm
/approve
Thanks

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aojea, shivanshu1333

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:

• test/e2e/framework/OWNERS [aojea]

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

[aojea]

/hold
it has the same issue in

kubernetes/test/e2e/framework/deployment/fixtures.go

Lines 153 to 159 in 123864a

	ownedPods := &v1.PodList{Items: make([]v1.Pod, 0, len(allPods.Items))}
	for _, pod := range allPods.Items {
	controllerRef := metav1.GetControllerOf(&pod)
	if controllerRef != nil && controllerRef.UID == replicaSetUID {
	ownedPods.Items = append(ownedPods.Items, pod)
	}
	}

and

kubernetes/test/e2e/framework/deployment/fixtures.go

Lines 129 to 135 in 123864a

	for _, rs := range ownedReplicaSets {
	if !podTemplatesEqualsIgnoringHash(&rs.Spec.Template, &deployment.Spec.Template) {
	continue
	}
	replicaSet = rs
	break

[aojea]

/lgtm cancel
can we replace the loops using references in the same function too?

[shivanshuraj1333]

Missed it previously, my bad
Fixed other for loops

[aojea]

should we use the same pattern everywhere?

[shivanshuraj1333]

same as above

[aojea]

should we use the same patter in line 134?

[shivanshuraj1333]

In line number 134 since we're not passing the address of rs, we can use both rs and ownedReplicaSets[i].
The current code is more readable and it also highlights the reason behind why we are explicitly passing &ownedReplicaSets[i] instead of &rs

[shivanshuraj1333]

@aojea if you think we still need to make the changes to the above review comments, kindly let me know. As far as I understand we can probably keep it like that.
Over to you xP

[aojea]

@aojea if you think we still need to make the changes to the above review comments, kindly let me know. As far as I understand we can probably keep it like that. Over to you xP

it is ok, but better if you can squash the commits

[shivanshuraj1333]

using label to squash
/label tide/merge-method-squash

[aojea]

/lgtm
Thanks

[shivanshuraj1333]

/hold cancel

[shivanshuraj1333]

/retest