Refactor project layout to enable multiple providers

[levikobi]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adding support for converting multiple Ingress providers, in an extensible and testable way.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #28

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

None

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @levikobi. 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.

[LiorLieberman]

/ok-to-test

[LiorLieberman]

Thanks @levikobi, thats an important piece of work!

The approach is LGTM but left some comments.

Also, any specific reason you wrapped all the errors with %w ? I did not find error types in this PR so not sure whats the value of the wrapping

[sunjayBhatia]

/cc

[levikobi]

Thanks @levikobi, thats an important piece of work!

The approach is LGTM but left some comments.

Also, any specific reason you wrapped all the errors with %w ? I did not find error types in this PR so not sure whats the value of the wrapping

As discussed offline, the %w doesn't add value right now. I will revert to %v.

[LiorLieberman]

/cc

[LiorLieberman]

Havent had time to look after the new commits yet but since we gonna have contour and istio implementing the provider specific logic first I would like another review from @howardjohn and @sunjayBhatia

/cc @howardjohn @sunjayBhatia

[LiorLieberman]

please open an issue for it and then put the issue num in the parenthesis.

TODO(<issue_number>) collate gateways objects

[youngnick]

I agree with this one, but I recommend also putting the person who logged the TODO right there if we can.

[levikobi]

I gave it a second thought, and I'm actually not sure we will need to collate the different resources that providers will generate.
Say we have 2 providers that each returned one gateway, they should not be merged into a single gateway.

So basically I think we can remove this todo altogether without opening a new issue, but please let me know if you disagree.

[LiorLieberman]

/label tide/merge-method-squash

[LiorLieberman]

Thanks very much for you hard work @levikobi !

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: levikobi, LiorLieberman

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 [LiorLieberman]

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