Improve monitoring service controller

[lburgazzoli]

Description

• avoid rewriting the Prometheus config file for each reconciliation
• add some basic unit tests

Note

requires #1689

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

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 45.56962% with 86 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 24.34%. Comparing base (6b2dcfc) to head (5c81f8e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rvices/monitoring/monitoring_controller_actions.go	44.64%	21 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️
...trollers/services/monitoring/monitoring_support.go	60.00%	10 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
pkg/cluster/resources.go	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
pkg/resources/resources.go	55.00%	6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...llers/services/monitoring/monitoring_controller.go	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...ctions/render/kustomize/action_render_manifests.go	41.66%	6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/controller/types/types.go	62.50%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
pkg/utils/test/mocks/types.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1688      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   23.60%   24.34%   +0.74%     
==========================================
  Files         171      171              
  Lines       11646    11660      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         2749     2839      +90     
+ Misses       8622     8525      -97     
- Partials      275      296      +21     

☔ 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.

[zdtsw]

not about this PR, but is the old logic correct:
if component X is enabled in DSC, but it never gets ready (crashloop) then promrule will never be added. so SRE will never get alerts?

[lburgazzoli]

correct, I think the idea was to avoid having misfired alerts when the components is being enabled for the first time, hover we do lack other mechanisms and alerts to cover the case you mentioned. Maybe we should ask SRE which could eventually could lead to a much simpler implementation.

[ykaliuta]

to avoid having misfired alerts when the components is being enabled for the first time

And I still have the concern about unconditional deploying of scraping jobs even without the rules.

[zdtsw]

everything is bad, thats why we need to get this #1676 out, one less headache in long term 😆

[lburgazzoli]

/test all

[lburgazzoli]

/test opendatahub-operator-e2e

[lburgazzoli]

/retest