Add 'disabled' field to IntegrationTestScenario spec

[jangel97]

There is currently no first-class way to disable an IntegrationTestScenario without deleting the resource. Users who want to temporarily disable a test must either remove the ITS entirely or rely on workarounds such as setting a non-matching context name (e.g. disabled), which depends on the fallthrough return false in IsContextValidForSnapshot:

https://github.com/konflux-ci/integration-service/blob/main/gitops/snapshot.go#L1233

While this works, it is not explicit and relies on implementation details.

Adding a field like spec.disabled would make the intent clear and improve operability. This pattern is common in Kubernetes APIs (e.g. CronJob.spec.suspend) to temporarily stop executions without deleting or modifying the resource configuration. It would also be discoverable via kubectl explain, making the behavior clearer to users.

Example

An IntegrationTestScenario could be temporarily disabled by setting spec.disabled: true:

apiVersion: appstudio.redhat.com/v1beta2
kind: IntegrationTestScenario
metadata:
  name: example-test
spec:
  disabled: true
  application: my-app
  contexts:
    - name: component_my-component

When spec.disabled is set to true, the Integration Service ignores the scenario during snapshot evaluation. Setting it back to false (or omitting the field) re-enables it without deleting or modifying contexts.

Summary

• Adds a disabled boolean field to IntegrationTestScenarioSpec (default: false)
• When disabled: true, the scenario is skipped in IsScenarioApplicableToSnapshotsContext before context matching
• Provides a first-class mechanism to temporarily disable integration tests without deleting the resource
• Includes CRD regeneration and test coverage

Motivation

Currently there is no official way to disable an ITS without deleting it. Users resort to workarounds such as using unrecognized context names (e.g. disabled), which rely on the fallthrough return false in IsContextValidForSnapshot.

A dedicated disabled field makes this behavior explicit and easier to operate.

Test plan

• Added test: disabled scenario with no contexts is filtered out
• Added test: disabled scenario with explicit contexts is still filtered out
• Existing context filtering tests updated to include disabled scenario in the list (counts unchanged)
• All 110 gitops tests pass

Closes #1501

[snyk-io]

✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status	Scan Engine	Critical	High	Medium	Low	Total (0)
✅	Open Source Security	0	0	0	0	0 issues
✅	Licenses	0	0	0	0	0 issues
✅	Code Security	0	0	0	0	0 issues

💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 42.22%. Comparing base (9b742d0) to head (305475f).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gitops/snapshot.go	0.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (9b742d0) and HEAD (305475f). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (9b742d0)	HEAD (305475f)
unit-tests	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1502       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   65.12%   42.22%   -22.91%     
===========================================
  Files          56       53        -3     
  Lines        7722     7335      -387     
===========================================
- Hits         5029     3097     -1932     
- Misses       2085     3738     +1653     
+ Partials      608      500      -108     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e-tests	42.22% <0.00%> (?)
unit-tests	?

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[hongweiliu17]

/ok-to-test

[hongweiliu17]

The go linter issue will be fixed by #1511

[hongweiliu17]

The code looks good to me. And need a rebase after merging #1511. Thanks!

[kasemAlem]

/retest

[jangel97]

@hongweiliu17 @kasemAlem I will wait for #1511 to be merged and then rebase this one. Thank you for looking into it!

[kasemAlem]

/retest