Fixed using reference in for loop

[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 #105426
Fixes #105425

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?

NONE

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]

/retest

[shivanshuraj1333]

/retest-required

[shivanshuraj1333]

/retest

[shivanshuraj1333]

@aojea this PR is similar to #105433, do you want to take a look at this as well?
Thanks!!

[shivanshuraj1333]

@gnufied PTAL

[shivanshuraj1333]

ping @aojea :)

[aojea]

I'd like for the people on those SIGs to review first, I wonder why the tests weren't affected
/assign @pohly for storage
ping @sig-autoscaling-maintainers

[k8s-ci-robot]

@aojea: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: for, storage.

Note that only kubernetes members, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time.
For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to this:

I'd like for the people on those SIGs to review first, I wonder why the tests weren't affected
/assign @pohly for storage
ping @sig-autoscaling-maintainers

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]

ping @pohly

[shivanshuraj1333]

/retest

[shivanshuraj1333]

ping @pohly for approval

[pohly]

/lgtm
/retest

[pohly]

/assign @bskiba

For approval as suggested by bot.

[aojea]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aojea, pohly, 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/autoscaling/OWNERS [aojea]
• test/e2e/storage/OWNERS [aojea,pohly]

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

[shivanshuraj1333]

/retest