feat(cloudprovider): add IBM disruption reasons

[nekkunti]

Description

Add IBM disruption reasons

Type of change

New feature / enhancement ( closes issue#439)

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nekkunti
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign pfeifferj for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[nekkunti]

@pfeifferj Could you review this .

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 55.79%. Comparing base (1a630bd) to head (2c5a6da).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #462      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.77%   55.79%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          58       58              
  Lines        8757     8762       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         4884     4889       +5     
  Misses       3525     3525              
  Partials      348      348              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pkg/cloudprovider/cloudprovider.go	54.50% <100.00%> (+0.57%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[nekkunti]

@pfeifferj merge conflict resolved , could you check this

[pfeifferj]

thank you @nekkunti I'll take a look either today or tomorrow

[pfeifferj]

there's a blocker upstream for this to be actually useful

kubernetes-sigs/karpenter#2741

that's on me for not checking how this is implemented in core. I based #439 off the AWS provider which has the method but it's never called

we can revisit this if upstream adds support for provider-defined disruption reasons

[nekkunti]

there's a blocker upstream for this to be actually useful

kubernetes-sigs/karpenter#2741

that's on me for not checking how this is implemented in core. I based #439 off the AWS provider which has the method but it's never called

we can revisit this if upstream adds support for provider-defined disruption reasons

Thanks , Please let me know once the upstream work is done, I’ll be happy to continue from there