Use the same processors for all currently supported provisioning classes

[aleksandra-malinowska]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Refactor that removes CombinedProcessor (we don't need separate processors for any currently envisioned provisioning classes) and adds a source-of-truth for supported provisioning classes.

The only change in behavior is including best-effort-atomic provisioning class as supported in now generic provisioning requests processor.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Issue: #6815

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

- [KEP]: https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler/blob/master/cluster-autoscaler/proposals/provisioning-request.md

/cc @yaroslava-serdiuk

[aleksandra-malinowska]

@yaroslava-serdiuk please confirm if lack of validation in injector was intentional, I'll add it if it was a bug.

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

Thanks for the changes!
Let's update the main as well:

autoscaler/cluster-autoscaler/main.go

Line 510 in c61e295

provreqProcesor := provreq.NewCombinedProvReqProcessor(client, []provreq.ProvisioningRequestProcessor{checkcapacity.NewCheckCapacityProcessor(client)})

Otherwise /lgtm

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/lgtm

[aleksandra-malinowska]

/cc @towca

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

Yaroslava Serdiuk please confirm if lack of validation in injector was intentional, I'll add it if it was a bug.

Sorry for late reply, I just realised that this is a bug and we actually should add validation in injector.
If it's ok for you, can you add it in this PR? Otherwise I can add it later in separate PR.

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/assign @x13n

[aleksandra-malinowska]

Sorry for late reply, I just realised that this is a bug and we actually should add validation in injector.
If it's ok for you, can you add it in this PR? Otherwise I can add it later in separate PR.

Let's merge this and add it later (preferably using the map introduced in this PR as source-of-truth).

[aleksandra-malinowska]

/uncc @towca
/cc @x13n

[aleksandra-malinowska]

@x13n just to clarify, most of this code is being moved from cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/checkcapacity/processor.go (adding comment as the diff doesn't render it clearly)

[x13n]

Yeah, I noticed, ended up copying both files and running a diff locally :)

[x13n]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aleksandra-malinowska, x13n

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:

• cluster-autoscaler/OWNERS [x13n]

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

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/lgtm

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@yaroslava-serdiuk: #6873 failed to apply on top of branch "cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30":

Applying: Use the same processors for all currently supported provisioning classes
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	cluster-autoscaler/main.go
M	cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/conditions/conditions.go
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/conditions/conditions.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/conditions/conditions.go
Removing cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/checkcapacity/processor.go
Auto-merging cluster-autoscaler/main.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in cluster-autoscaler/main.go
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Use the same processors for all currently supported provisioning classes
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

In response to this:

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

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-sigs/prow repository.

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@yaroslava-serdiuk: #6873 failed to apply on top of branch "cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30":

Applying: Use the same processors for all currently supported provisioning classes
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	cluster-autoscaler/main.go
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Removing cluster-autoscaler/provisioningrequest/checkcapacity/processor.go
Auto-merging cluster-autoscaler/main.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in cluster-autoscaler/main.go
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Use the same processors for all currently supported provisioning classes
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

In response to this:

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

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-sigs/prow repository.

[yaroslava-serdiuk]

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@yaroslava-serdiuk: new pull request created: #7051

In response to this:

/cherry-pick cluster-autoscaler-release-1.30

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-sigs/prow repository.