Skip setting owner refs for objects that don't support it

[tomasaschan]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Before this fix, a declarative controller using declarative.WithOwner(declarative.SourceAsOwner) will end up in an infinite reconciliation loop if any of the manifests in the package do not support having the declarative object as its owner.

For example, consider a namespaced declarative object foo/foo of type Foo, installing a package that adds a few objects (say, two Bars) in the same namespace plus another object (say, a Baz) in a fixed namespace qux. With the old behavior of this reconciler, the following happens:

1. The reconciler creates all objects in the package, setting owner references to an object with the same group, version, kind and name as the declarative object, and the same namespace as each respective object from the package. In other words, we get two Bars in foo owned by foo/foo, and a Baz in qux owned by qux/foo.

2. Since qux/foo does not exist, the API server decides that it must have been deleted, and that means qux/baz should also be deleted (its owner no longer exists).

3. The reconciler is notified, and determines that qux/baz is missing, re-adding it again with an owner reference to qux/foo.

4. Go back to step 2.

With the change in this PR, the reconciler will instead skip setting an owner reference on qux/foo, avoiding the infinite loop at the cost of qux/foo now being a "dangling" object; if/when the declarative object foo/foo is deleted, qux/foo will be left untouched in the cluster.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #176

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @tomasaschan!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder-declarative-pattern 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder-declarative-pattern has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @tomasaschan. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[rajansandeep]

/ok-to-test

[estroz]

This condition should be logged like above.

[justinsb]

I agree we should alert, but I've been thinking about who we are alerting for. I think the answer is that we are alerting for the addon operator developer, but not the addon operator user. There's actually a whole set of these, particularly as we improve the functionality (e.g. reuse of the RESTMapper), which include recommended but not required code changes.

I think I'm going to merge this PR as-is therefore, but then try to implement a "developer notification" mode.

[tomasaschan]

@justinsb I'm happy to amend this PR with logging if you'd like, but we currently have a rather ugly workaround with a custom declarative.WithObjectTransform that would be nice to get rid of, so if merging this and then adding new logging mechanism can be done in separate step's I'll be happy about it :)

[justinsb]

/approve
/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb, tomasaschan

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [justinsb]

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