Extend Volume Policies feature to support more actions

[shubham-pampattiwar]

Thank you for contributing to Velero!

Please add a summary of your change

Implementation PR for Extend Volume Policies feature to support more actions

Related design: #6956

Does your change fix a particular issue?

Fixes #6640

Please indicate you've done the following:

• Accepted the DCO. Commits without the DCO will delay acceptance.
• Created a changelog file or added /kind changelog-not-required as a comment on this pull request.
• Updated the corresponding documentation in site/content/docs/main.

[qiuming-best]

Is the condition pdvolumeutil.Contains in this line of code duplicated with the same logic in ShouldIncludeVolumeInBackup function? or it could not execute Line 129 for it will always execute L124 first if the matching condition?

[qiuming-best]

@shubham-pampattiwar please take a look before merging this PR

[qiuming-best]

Would it should be like below?

	for i, vol := range pod.Spec.Volumes {
		if !v.ShouldIncludeVolumeInBackup(vol, volsToExclude, backupExcludePVC) {
		       // don't backup volumes that are included in the exclude list.
		        if util.Contains(volsToExclude, vol.Name) {
			     FSBackupNonActionMatchingVols = append(FSBackupNonActionMatchingVols, vol.Name)
			     }
			continue
		}
		
		if vol.PersistentVolumeClaim != nil {}

[shubham-pampattiwar]

Actually I have removed the volsToExclude check from the volume policy processing logic as it is related to legacy annotations based approach.
To Clarify, Volume Policy existence will be checked first and processed first. The legacy annotations based fallback option will be used only in 2 cases:

• If no Volume Policy is specified by the user: Ref code link from PR
• If there are Volumes for which no Volume Policy action was found i.e. action was nil : Ref code link from PR
  I have added comments in the code for the above process.

[Lyndon-Li]

@shubham-pampattiwar Could help to address the comments so that we can further review and merge it? To meet FC, we hope this could be merged by the end of this week or early next week.

[shubham-pampattiwar]

@Lyndon-Li addressed PR comments.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.85621% with 40 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 58.66%. Comparing base (22b9465) to head (8d2bef2).
Report is 24 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/backup/item_backupper.go	35.48%	16 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
internal/volumehelper/volume_policy_helper.go	78.31%	11 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
internal/resourcepolicies/resource_policies.go	75.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/cmd/server/server.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7664      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   58.51%   58.66%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files         343      344       +1     
  Lines       28486    28723     +237     
==========================================
+ Hits        16670    16849     +179     
- Misses      10401    10445      +44     
- Partials     1415     1429      +14     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Lyndon-Li]

@shubham-pampattiwar
Two more following up comments from me and @blackpiglet, see if you could address it. Basically, we suggest to avoid generating a dynamic client inside the helper, but get it from the backup as an input parameter and then call the existing function in util/pvc_pv.go.

[Lyndon-Li]

@shubham-pampattiwar
We also see the code coverage has dropped by 0.24% due to this PR, could you help to add some more test case?

[shubham-pampattiwar]

@Lyndon-Li @blackpiglet Addressed PR feedback and added tests. PTAL, Thanks !

On-hold