feat: option to triggering reconciler on all events

[csviri]

Adds option to trigger reconciliation on all events.

Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros [email protected]

[csviri]

@metacosm @xstefank I will add a bunch of unit tests, and docs, but the core of it is ready. Pls take a look, thank you.

[csviri]

@xstefank @metacosm This feature is ready now, please review it. Happy to give also a tour together in case that is needed. thank you

[metacosm]

As mentioned in the issue, I'd rather see this supported via listeners than via yet another feature flag.

[csviri]

As mentioned in the issue, I'd rather see this supported via listeners than via yet another feature flag.

The idea behind this is same as controllers work in go, having a separate listernet would not be an eleant solution, basically we just trigger reconiliation for all the events as in go is done by default. This way we don't need an another interface or any other construct.

[csviri]

As mentioned in the issue, I'd rather see this supported via listeners than via yet another feature flag.

Also in the past on purpose reduced the number of those interaces, and I think that was the right choice. I'm not that happy about to much feature flags, but I see this the as the better option now, since it is closed to go; feature flags use can much easier see than a new interface. And note that this is nost just about the delete events, but all the events, for example when others have finalizers added to the custom resources, it is marked for deletion, but meanwhile updated (or just on the mar of deletion event) so acutally much harder to capture with an interface. I really think this is a better model just to have to trigger the reconciler on everthing than having separate methods.

[metacosm]

Following the go SDK should only been done where it makes sense. I don't think it's a particularly compelling argument for this particular design or the other flags that have been introduced lately.

[csviri]

@metacosm @xstefank can I merge this?

[metacosm]

Reviewing again but could you please add comments / explanations on the integration test?

[xstefank]

Other than this LGTM

[csviri]

Reviewing again but could you please add comments / explanations on the integration test?

Added comments / explanations for the tests. Thank you!

I'm also thinking to later do an additional PR, with more samples and guides.
We are more writing the docs as reference documentation now, but might be good to have some guides section.
cc @xstefank

[metacosm]

Reviewing again but could you please add comments / explanations on the integration test?

Added comments / explanations for the tests. Thank you!

I'm also thinking to later do an additional PR, with more samples and guides. We are more writing the docs as reference documentation now, but might be good to have some guides section. cc @xstefank

Thank you for the added comments, however, what I was after was more comments as to what the reconciliation logic is and what it's trying to show as this is the most important part to understand what the test is trying to achieve.

[metacosm]

Nitpick: add @SInCE here and below?

[metacosm]

nitpick: add @SInCE?