OSD-22892 (Part 1): Machine ID Lookup Table

[abyrne55]

What does this PR do? / Related Issues / Jira

This PR is composed of commits cherry-picked from my larger OSD-22892 branch for the sake of readability.

These commits cover the definition of the Probe interface's GetMachineImageID() method, as well as a reference implementation for the CurlJSONProbe. This method takes 3 string arguments (platformType, cpuArch, and region) and returns a "machine image ID," which is a cloud-platform-agnostic term for AMI ID. The platformType and cpuArch arguments should be one of the helpers.Platform* and helpers.Arch* enumerated string types, respectively, while region is more free-form. An example invocation might look like:

imageID, err = myCurlJSONProbe.GetMachineImageID(helpers.PlatformAWS, helpers.ArchX86, "us-east-1")

On the backend, CurlJSONProbe's implementation of GetMachineImageID() is essentially a lookup table, i.e., a multi-level dictionary (in "machine-images.go") containing all the machine image IDs, plus a helper function with some lookup validation logic (e.g., to account for the fact that GCP machine image IDs are not region-specific like AMIs). The x86 AMI IDs included in this PR are the first "RHEL repackaged" images published to the verifier's golden AMI account: these are not expected to change often (maybe 1-3x per year). Ditto for the GCP machine image IDs, which just point to the publicly-available GCP RHEL images. ARM image IDs have placeholder values for now.

This PR intentionally does not cover integration of this new code into the verifier's critical path. That integration will be covered in a separate cherry-picked PR. As such, there isn't much to execute for this PR beyond the included unit tests. When reviewing this PR, please focus on code style/structure.

Checklist

• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [ ] I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have tested the functionality against gcp / aws, it doesn't cause any regression
• [ ] I have added execution results to the PR's readme

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 27.42%. Comparing base (820bf4e) to head (10d1890).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #240      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   26.32%   27.42%   +1.09%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        1056     1072      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits          278      294      +16     
  Misses        764      764              
  Partials       14       14              

Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/helpers/helpers.go	87.05% <ø> (ø)
pkg/probes/curl_json/curl_json.go	59.52% <100.00%> (+24.90%)	⬆️

[AlexVulaj]

/lgtm

[luis-falcon]

/lgtm

[rafael-azevedo]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rafael-azevedo

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 [rafael-azevedo]

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

[openshift-ci]

@abyrne55: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.