Broker class based defaults

[Leo6Leo]

Fixes #5992

Proposed Changes

Pre-review Checklist

• At least 80% unit test coverage
• E2E tests for any new behavior
• Docs PR for any user-facing impact
• Spec PR for any new API feature
• Conformance test for any change to the spec

Release Note

Docs

[knative-prow]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.48%. Comparing base (7e1c082) to head (aef75f5).
Report is 45 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7631      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.22%   69.48%   +0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         339      344       +5     
  Lines       19494    15921    -3573     
==========================================
- Hits        13494    11063    -2431     
+ Misses       5337     4183    -1154     
- Partials      663      675      +12     

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

[creydr]

shouldn't we check before, if d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClass == brokerClassName and if this is the case return d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerConfig, as you wrote in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RKij-DYPmcbCTHF26hkXdrtWHqrksA-Fo5qYLRP7xVA/edit

# The brokerClasses contain the configmap, delivery spec for other brokerClasses.
# The one specified above is NOT included.
# Reason: to maintain compatibility, we are not removing those old fields. And it is not 
# necessary to add it again here under brokerClasses.

Otherwise d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerConfig does not take preference over d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClasses[] (what I meant in #7631 (comment))

[Leo6Leo]

I think the logic here is correct, prob I didn't explain clearly in the Doc, sorry about that! @creydr

if d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClass == brokerClassName, then we will directly use d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerConfig. And this brokerClass shouldn't appear in d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClasses.

When I was referring to:

The one specified above is NOT included.

It means the brokerConfig for d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClass will not be included in the d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerClasses

[creydr]

Could we change this for easier understanding and verification to a table-test? So that we specify for each case the input and expected output? Similar to what we did in TestDefaultsConfiguration()
That way we could also easily add a case for all of the cases described in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RKij-DYPmcbCTHF26hkXdrtWHqrksA-Fo5qYLRP7xVA/edit and verify if it works as expected

[Leo6Leo]

/hold currently trying to manually test the functionality

[Leo6Leo]

Manually creating the broker and test it, some problem occurs: the config from the brokerClasses cannot be used. Currently investigating

[github-actions]

This Pull Request is stale because it has been open for 90 days with
no activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen with /reopen. Mark as fresh by adding the
comment /remove-lifecycle stale.

[Cali0707]

Hey @Leo6Leo anything I can help with on this PR?

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Leo6Leo
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from cali0707. For more information see the Kubernetes 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

[Leo6Leo]

/remove-lifecycle stale

Resume working on the issue

[Leo6Leo]

Currently, the table unit test Created broker with DLQ and no Cluster Reference namespace for rabbitmq is failing.

broker_test.go:1289: Extra event: Warning InternalError broker.spec.config.[name, namespace] are required

Note: this is where clusterReference.Namespace is set.

@creydr @pierDipi @Cali0707 Do you guys know how to run the tests in the eventing-rabbitmq repo locally with the changes I have made in this PR?

[creydr]

Currently, the table unit test Created broker with DLQ and no Cluster Reference namespace for rabbitmq is failing.

broker_test.go:1289: Extra event: Warning InternalError broker.spec.config.[name, namespace] are required

Note: this is where clusterReference.Namespace is set.

@creydr @pierDipi @Cali0707 Do you guys know how to run the tests in the eventing-rabbitmq repo locally with the changes I have made in this PR?

Not sure, if there is a simple way, but you can use your branch to eventing-core in eventing-rabbitsmqs go.mod file via a replace directive. E.g. something like this:

replace (
    knative.dev/eventing => github.com/Leo6Leo/eventing default-broker-class
)

and then run ./hack/update-deps.sh