feat(controller): allow setting the Experiment's service name; don't hardcode ports

[alexef]

Fixes: #2233

Stop hardcoding service port.
Allow user to set the experiment service name.
Create a service even though a weight is not set (when the name is provided)

Example:

...
steps:
- experiment:
     templates: 
     - name: experiment-baseline
       specRef: stable
       service: 
          name: my-experiment # optional
          ports:
          - port: 80
            targetPort: 8080
            protocol: TCP

This is a follow up of #2356, see also this comment for context.

Checklist:

• Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this is a chore.
• The title of the PR is (a) conventional with a list of types and scopes found here, (b) states what changed, and (c) suffixes the related issues number. E.g. "fix(controller): Updates such and such. Fixes #1234".
• I've signed my commits with DCO
• I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
• My builds are green. Try syncing with master if they are not.
• My organization is added to USERS.md.

[github-actions]

Go Published Test Results

1 642 tests   1 641 ✔️  2m 11s ⏱️
   101 suites         0 💤
       1 files           1 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 95b48ca.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 82.76% // Head: 82.77% // Increases project coverage by +0.01% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (8f46d8c) compared to base (381feea).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 8f46d8c differs from pull request most recent head 95b48ca. Consider uploading reports for the commit 95b48ca to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2357      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.76%   82.77%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         121      121              
  Lines       18536    18551      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        15341    15356      +15     
  Misses       2410     2410              
  Partials      785      785              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
experiments/experiment.go	90.07% <100.00%> (+0.38%)	⬆️
experiments/service.go	67.08% <100.00%> (-2.68%)	⬇️
rollout/experiment.go	84.36% <100.00%> (+0.22%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[github-actions]

E2E Tests Published Test Results

    2 files      2 suites   1h 29m 2s ⏱️
  89 tests   84 ✔️ 3 💤 2 ❌
180 runs  172 ✔️ 6 💤 2 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 95b48ca.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[alexef]

@zachaller can you have a look at this?

[zachaller]

One last thing then I think this is good, could you add some documentation and update docs about when a service is generated etc I think mainly around this page https://argoproj.github.io/argo-rollouts/features/experiment/ and maybe on the spec https://argoproj.github.io/argo-rollouts/features/specification/

[alexef]

Updated the docs, not sure if it's okay: 0f5ed7a

Regarding service spec, we should probably also mark this in the docs as available from next release?

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

No Coverage information
1.8% Duplication

[alexef]

superseeded by: #2397