Fix teardown to clean up operator namespace

[AlexVulaj]

Fixes #72 - adds both vs all distinction for teardown behavior.

Changes:

• teardown both - removes central + sensor, keeps operator (fast iteration)

• teardown all - removes central + sensor + operator (full cleanup)

• Default teardown is now all for complete cleanup

• Teardowns run in parallel for better performance

• Operator deployment is now explicit instead of hidden in central/sensor deployment

• Added app.kubernetes.io/managed-by=roxie label to operator namespace

  Breaking change: Default teardown behavior changed from leaving operator behind to removing it. Use teardown both for the old behavior.

Manual testing:

Default behavior (all):

• ./roxie deploy --resources=small → deployed central + sensor + operator
• ./roxie teardown → removed all three including rhacs-operator-system namespace

both vs all distinction:

• ./roxie deploy all --resources=small → deployed everything
• ./roxie teardown both → central/sensor resources deleted, operator kept running
• ./roxie teardown all → operator removed

Single namespace mode:

• ./roxie deploy --single-namespace --resources=small → stackrox namespace labeled with managed-by=roxie
• ./roxie teardown --single-namespace → cleaned up including operator

Parallel teardown verified - all three components started teardown simultaneously (logged at 00:01), finished independently.

[mclasmeier]

I see the issue, I am not 100% convinced that this is the way we should be doing it this way.

Why: I always tried to make roxie as snappy as possible to optimize for feedback cycles during development/testing.

With this change we would add some work for each new deployment (of the entire stack), namely redeploying the operator and waiting until it is ready. Currently roxie is treating the operator like some sort of implementation detail and automatically takes care of desired up- & downgrades when necessary. I personally think that this is working quite nicely.

What's your opinion on this?

At the same time I do understand that there might be use-cases for also cleaning up on the cluster entirely.

So, I am thinking, maybe we should provide ways to do both, but be explicit about it.

Just an idea, what about we stop treating "both" and "all" to mean the same thing? For example, "both" could mean "central & securedcluster" while "all" could mean "both + also the operator"?
This way we would get around introducing some flag like --all, which would make an invocation such as

roxie teardown all --all

seem a bit weird.

Let me also tag @porridge on this one.

[porridge]

+1 to @mclasmeier 's idea
BTW, there is also #55

[mclasmeier]

+1 to @mclasmeier 's idea BTW, there is also #55

Thank you for the reminder, will TAL.

[AlexVulaj]

@mclasmeier @porridge thanks so much for your comments! I've made some pretty big changes, PTAL!

[mclasmeier]

Awesome. Looking good, just 2 nits.