Add support for EndpointSlices

[shaun-nx]

Proposed changes

This PR updates the Ingress Controller to support EndpointSlices

Checklist

Before creating a PR, run through this checklist and mark each as complete.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have checked that all unit tests pass after adding my changes
• I have updated necessary documentation
• I have rebased my branch onto main
• I will ensure my PR is targeting the main branch and pulling from my branch from my own fork

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3260 (704dcba) into main (4464caf) will increase coverage by 0.22%.
The diff coverage is 45.28%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3260      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.66%   52.89%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files          59       59              
  Lines       16117    16137      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits         8488     8535      +47     
+ Misses       7345     7316      -29     
- Partials      284      286       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
internal/k8s/handlers.go	6.83% <0.00%> (ø)
internal/k8s/task_queue.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
internal/k8s/utils.go	14.08% <0.00%> (-0.63%)	⬇️
internal/k8s/controller.go	12.85% <56.47%> (+1.57%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[jjngx]

how about:

func TestGetEndpointsFromEndpointSlieces_ErrorsOnInvalidInput(t *testing.T) {
// content goes here
}

Since we are interested to test if the method errors on invalid inputs (sourced from "table tests") how about:

_, err := lbc.getEndpointsForPortFromEndpointSlices(....)
if err == nil {
    t.Error("want error, got nil")
}

Since we are interested in the fact that the func returns an error, lines 743...745 seem to be of no use.

In general, it may be worth to leverage cmp.Equal method since we use the cmp package anyway. How about:

if !cmp.Equal(want, got) {
    t.Error(cmp.Diff(want, got))
}

Note, that we defer calculating Diff, and do so only if the test fails. Checking for equality is cheeper comparing to calculating Diff.

Just food for thought.

On line 745... it is worth to ask a question: "Do we really care what message we get?" Do we run any business logic (decision) based on this error? If yes, this may be a candidate for using sentinel errors, and would require to check what type of the error we get (errors.Is() method from the errors package.

[ciarams87]

🚀

[jjngx]

🚀 great! 👍🏻