fix: 81134: fix unsafe json for ReleaseControllerRevision

[manugupt1]

fix: 81134: fix unsafe json for ReleaseControllerRevision

There is a reference of the same

kubernetes/pkg/controller/garbagecollector/patch.go

Lines 32 to 39 in 04a72d5

	type objectForDeleteOwnerRefStrategicMergePatch struct {
	Metadata objectMetaForMergePatch `json:"metadata"`
	}
	type objectMetaForMergePatch struct {
	UID types.UID `json:"uid"`
	OwnerReferences []map[string]string `json:"ownerReferences"`
	}

but I went with this style of change because I did not want to make a private part of the package public and chose anonymous struct instead. Please let me know if it looks okay or another change is reqd. Thanks

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Fixes unsafe json construction in ReleaseControllerRevision

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

#81134

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

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

NONE

Test

ok k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/controller/history 0.257s

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @manugupt1. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

[manugupt1]

/kind bug

[atiratree]

but I went with this style of change because I did not want to make a private part of the package public and chose anonymous struct instead

using a typed struct would be more conventional IMO and make any future refactorings easier

[dims]

/assign @deads2k @cheftako

[soltysh]

/assign @soltysh

[manugupt1]

@deads2k @soltysh @cheftako Can I please get a review on this PR? thanks!

[soltysh]

One nit and then you're good to go.

[fedebongio]

/triage accepted

[soltysh]

/lgtm
/approve

[soltysh]

/priority backlog

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: atiratree, manugupt1, soltysh

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:

• pkg/controller/OWNERS [soltysh]

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