Reduce component reconciler's action verbosity

[lburgazzoli]

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshot or short clip

Merge criteria

• You have read the contributors guide.
• Commit messages are meaningful - have a clear and concise summary and detailed explanation of what was changed and why.
• Pull Request contains a description of the solution, a link to the JIRA issue, and to any dependent or related Pull Request.
• Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
• The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.42857% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (feature-operator-refactor@89bf20a). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/controller/actions/deploy/action_deploy.go	84.21%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/controller/actions/gc/action_gc.go	78.57%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...oller/actions/updatestatus/action_update_status.go	72.72%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/controller/actions/gc/action_gc_support.go	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                     Coverage Diff                      @@
##             feature-operator-refactor    #1388   +/-   ##
============================================================
  Coverage                             ?   27.12%           
============================================================
  Files                                ?       60           
  Lines                                ?     4811           
  Branches                             ?        0           
============================================================
  Hits                                 ?     1305           
  Misses                               ?     3354           
  Partials                             ?      152           

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

[zdtsw]

LGTM

[VaishnaviHire]

I have a tangential question - Is there a reason for labels to be components.opendatahub.io/part-of:default-dashboard instead of components.opendatahub.io/part-of:dashboard ?

[zdtsw]

i guess the question is:
should the value be the name of the component CR or the name of the component kind ?

[lburgazzoli]

Yeah, the way we use labels should be cleaned up a little bit :) , so as today we use the instance name because that label is used by predicates and event mapper and some actions but I think the right path would be to:

• use the Kind for the part-of
• add some additional annotations for other stuffs (predicated, mapper, etc)

[VaishnaviHire]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: zdtsw

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [zdtsw]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[lburgazzoli]

/test opendatahub-operator-e2e