Make kubectl label and annotate more consistent

[asalkeld]

What this PR does / why we need it:
This makes the label and annotate cmd files more consistent which should help with code maintenance.

Some of the main changes:

• add dryrun to annotate (can push this in a different PR if requested)
• use Complete(), Validate() and RunX()
• don't place dynamic variables in the options (only user options and args)
• call the NewBuilder() in the Run function.

Which issue this PR fixes
fixes #34151

Special notes for your reviewer:
Note: you can now diff the two files and the changes make sense.

Release note:

kubectl annotate now supports --dry-run

---

This change is

[asalkeld]

@deads2k as requested...

[k8s-ci-robot]

Jenkins GCE Node e2e failed for commit ff855c05f6f3ca39ed7aa0fb1691a720a1abbe1b. Full PR test history.

The magic incantation to run this job again is @k8s-bot node e2e test this. Please help us cut down flakes by linking to an open flake issue when you hit one in your PR.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Jenkins verification failed for commit ff855c05f6f3ca39ed7aa0fb1691a720a1abbe1b. Full PR test history.

The magic incantation to run this job again is @k8s-bot verify test this. Please help us cut down flakes by linking to an open flake issue when you hit one in your PR.

[j3ffml]

---

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

pkg/kubectl/cmd/annotate.go, line 39 at r1 (raw file):

// AnnotateOptions have the data required to perform the annotate operation
type AnnotateOptions struct {
  // Filename options

This comment is unnecessaryf (same for the one in label.go).

---

Comments from Reviewable

[asalkeld]

Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

pkg/kubectl/cmd/annotate.go, line 39 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, jlowdermilk (Jeff Dempsey) wrote…

This comment is unnecessaryf (same for the one in label.go).

Yeah, Just wanted to separate the fields logically. Do you want me to remove before merging?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[deads2k]

Yeah, Just wanted to separate the fields logically. Do you want me to remove before merging?

We can catch it in a sweep later. I think this change stands on its own. Nice job.

[deads2k]

I'd like to avoid anonymous inclusion where possible. The method aliasing seems to encourage bad habits (see Factory) and gain for non-serialized types isn't very significant. I won't block on it.

[deads2k]

In the end state, we'd like the options struct's Run to stand on their own, completely divorced from cobra for re-use and delegation as well as testing. Something to keep in mind.

Issue ref: #7311

[k8s-github-robot]

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

[k8s-github-robot]

Automatic merge from submit-queue