✨ Single/Own Namespace Install Mode Support

[perdasilva]

Description

Part of #593
Closes #1751 and #1752

Adds initial implementation of SingleNamespace and OwnNamespace install mode support for registry+v1 bundle behind SingleOwnNamespaceInstallSupport alpha feature-gate.

The user can install a registry+v1 bundle in SingleNamespace or OwnNamespace install mode by setting the watch namespace through the olm.operatorframework.io/watch-namespace annotation on the ClusterExtension, as long as the following criteria is met:

• bundle supports Single- and/or OwnNamespace install modes
• SingleOwnNamespaceInstallSupport feature-gate is enabled on the controller
• olm.operatorframework.io/watch-namespace annotation points to a single existing namespace

The annotation value will determine the install mode:

• empty: bundle is installed in AllNamespaces mode
• valid namespace name and is equal to the value the install namespace of (.spec.namespace) in the ClusterExtension: bundle is installed in OwnNamespace mode (or SingleNamespace mode if OwnNamespace mode is not supported)
• valid namespace name and the value is not equal to the install namespace (.spec.namespace) in the ClusterExtension: bundle is installed in SingleNamespace mode

Note: SingleNamespace mode also covers the case where the watchNamespace == .spec.namespace. If the operator only supports OwnNamespace install mode, this means it can ONLY watch the install namespace.

If the annotation is not present, standard behavior applies: AllNamespaces mode.
If annotation value is not a valid namespace name the installation will halt with an error.

Notes:

• In order to facilitate testing, I've modified the applier adding the bundleToChart conversion function as a memeber (this way we can mock it). I've only tested the integration of this function into the applier. In a follow up PR mode robust testing will be applier to the conversion package to (further) ensure we're accurately rendering registry+v1 bundles.
• I've also removed the context parameter since it only served to pass a logger that used to log an error when closing the manifest file. To me, it didn't seem worth it. Though I'd be ok with reverting that if there are any objections.

DEMOS

SingleNamespace

OwnNamespace

Reviewer Checklist

• API Go Documentation
• Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• Comprehensive Commit Messages
• Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	e39a1f5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/67c05d1cc47d1d0008daecde
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1724--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.43%. Comparing base (13a594f) to head (e39a1f5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/operator-controller/applier/helm.go	70.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1724      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.39%   68.43%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          62       63       +1     
  Lines        5117     5132      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         3500     3512      +12     
- Misses       1388     1390       +2     
- Partials      229      230       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	51.55% <51.85%> (-0.15%)	⬇️
unit	56.02% <77.77%> (+0.10%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[joelanford]

Wow, I am impressed with how simple that is with the existing code we have.

[LalatenduMohanty]

@joelanford @perdasilva Are we planning to write a RFC for this feature Single own namespace. Also Is this PR related to #593 in some way. In that case, can we update the epic description too.

[camilamacedo86]

Thank you for all the amazing explanations! Your work is truly outstanding—terrific job!
🚀

[camilamacedo86]

/lgtm

[thetechnick]

/lgtm