build: add gen-csv files in downstream repo

[subhamkrai]

build: add gen-csv files in downstream repo

This commit add the csv related changes to downstream and
later will be removed from upstream also renaming make 'csv'
to 'gen-csv' and also adds validation check in ci to verify
right files are modified.

build: add csv envs to rook deploy envs

moving all the default envs which were part of
ocs-op rook csv to operator deployment.

build: these are auto-generated files

This commit contains auto-generated files
that are added/modified by running 'make gen-csv'.

Checklist:

• Commit Message Formatting: Commit titles and messages follow guidelines in the developer guide.
• Reviewed the developer guide on Submitting a Pull Request
• Pending release notes updated with breaking and/or notable changes for the next minor release.
• Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Unit tests have been added, if necessary.
• Integration tests have been added, if necessary.

[subhamkrai]

@travisn @Nikhil-Ladha PTAL

[Nikhil-Ladha]

cc @iamniting

[parth-gr]

I think we need to remove the csv in upstream, otherwise if this is merged and then upstream remove csv pr is merged then branch sync would have a problem.

[BlaineEXE]

I am also somewhat concerned that this code is special for downstream and that it may be erased when github.com/rook/rook@master is resynced here, or to release-* branches. I certainly may also be misunderstanding something here.

[subhamkrai]

I am also somewhat concerned that this code is special for downstream and that it may be erased when github.com/rook/rook@master is resynced here, or to release-* branches. I certainly may also be misunderstanding something here.

If we just skip one upstream commit that removes the csv related file, downstream should be good then I guess

[Nikhil-Ladha]

I am also somewhat concerned that this code is special for downstream and that it may be erased when github.com/rook/rook@master is resynced here, or to release-* branches. I certainly may also be misunderstanding something here.

If we just skip one upstream commit that removes the csv related file, downstream should be good then I guess

We don't have to skip anything as such, once we are set to merge these changes at that time we should first delete the changes in upstream, sync those changes to downstream, rebase this PR and then merge. Then, everything should be good and we won't be facing any challenges.

And, later syncs won't be a problem because we are just bring commits from upstream to downstream, that would continue as usual.

[subhamkrai]

I am also somewhat concerned that this code is special for downstream and that it may be erased when github.com/rook/rook@master is resynced here, or to release-* branches. I certainly may also be misunderstanding something here.

If we just skip one upstream commit that removes the csv related file, downstream should be good then I guess

We don't have to skip anything as such, once we are set to merge these changes at that time we should first delete the changes in upstream, sync those changes to downstream, rebase this PR and then merge. Then, everything should be good and we won't be facing any challenges.

And, later syncs won't be a problem because we are just bring commits from upstream to downstream, that would continue as usual.

IIRC, once we remove the csv generation files from upstream and sync that to downstream those file will be removed in downstream also and the csv generation will fail. But let's sync on this @Nikhil-Ladha

[subhamkrai]

For me locally build.all is passing and I don't have mac to test the mac failure.

@travisn @BlaineEXE could anyone of you help in mac CI error?

[BlaineEXE]

Looking at the CI error for macos, I think the build itself is succeeding properly. But in the "validate build" step afterward, the git status --porcelain output afterwards is showing that the build created a diff between what is checked into the code.

The git diff suggests that the status wants to remove all of the CRDs, judging by the - chars along the lefthand side of the diff.

+ git diff
-apiVersion: apiextensions.k8s.io/v1
-kind: CustomResourceDefinition
-metadata:
-  annotations:
-    controller-gen.kubebuilder.io/version: v0.11.3
-  creationTimestamp: null
-  name: cephblockpoolradosnamespaces.ceph.rook.io
-spec:
-  group: ceph.rook.io
-  names:
-    kind: CephBlockPoolRadosNamespace
-    listKind: CephBlockPoolRadosNamespaceList
-    plural: cephblockpoolradosnamespaces
-    singular: cephblockpoolradosnamespace
-  scope: Namespaced
# etc...

[subhamkrai]

@subhamkrai in last offline discussion we suggested to have a separate readme.md that only talks about downstream specific changes and avoid merge conflicts. Currently this change and change for SVG is added #589 So with this PR have a plan to initiate that
cc @travisn @iamniting

I would highly suggest doing so, so that we don't miss any commits in the future branches.

I will prefer to do it in separate PR
since I'm planning to get this PR merged EOD and docs PRs generally have more reviews before they get merged

[parth-gr]

I will prefer to do it in separate PR since I'm planning to get this PR merged EOD and docs PRs generally have more reviews before they get merged

I don't have any problem with separate PR, but keep that item in mind as we cant track it separately anywhere.

[subhamkrai]

@iamniting PTAL

[iamniting]

Can you update this as well?

[openshift-ci]

@iamniting: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

In response to this:

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[iamniting]

CSV changes looks good to me

[sp98]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sp98, subhamkrai

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