pkg/proxy: use generic sets

[aroradaman]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Replace typed sets with new generic sets

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

For logging and debugging statements, I have used Unsorted ordering to get all elements of the set. In other places I have used sorted ordering sets.List as some test cases were dependent on the ordering.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

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.

[aroradaman]

/retest

[aroradaman]

/release-note-none

[aojea]

/lgtm
/assign @danwinship

I did a quick skim, it will be good another pair of eyes

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 4924b78209f984df718db4aefe5f5bc9dfcd09d5

[danwinship]

lol, now you're just messing with me!

[aroradaman]

@danwinship lol, no !
one of the ipvs unit test fails, expects sorted ordering:

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/ipvs/proxier_test.go

Lines 4430 to 4433 in f66e1a3

	assert.Equal(t, realServers1[0].String(), "10.0.1.1:80")
	assert.Equal(t, realServers1[1].String(), "10.0.1.2:80")
	assert.Equal(t, realServers1[2].String(), "10.0.1.3:80")

So I updated the set iterations in IPVS to use sorted order. I narrowed it down, if I make the following unordered the test case fails

kubernetes/pkg/proxy/ipvs/proxier.go

Line 1882 in f66e1a3

for _, ep := range newEndpoints.List() {

should I update the test case in another commit to compare the arrays independent of the order ?

[danwinship]

/lgtm
/approve

What happened with the ipvs unit test thing? Did that turn out to be caused by another change you'd made somewhere else?

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 39627929048a2d88a66b6d68cde8212f29f4b4fb

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: daman1807, danwinship

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/proxy/OWNERS [danwinship]

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