Always add ActiveGate ports no matter the capability

[gkrenn]

Description

This PR changes the handling of the ActiveGate ports. They will be activated no matter the enabled capability, the only requirement is that at least 1 capability has to be activated.

Jira

How can this be tested?

• install to cluster
• create ActiveGate DynaKube
• service dynakube-activegate should be created as well as the ports on the ActiveGate container

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.26087% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 64.66%. Comparing base (080c62c) to head (6b753f2).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...akube/activegate/internal/capability/reconciler.go	28.57%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4069      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.68%   64.66%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         397      397              
  Lines       26509    26491      -18     
==========================================
- Hits        17148    17131      -17     
  Misses       8031     8031              
+ Partials     1330     1329       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	64.66% <78.26%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[chrismuellner]

why keep the check at all? if there's an activegate there should be a service

[gkrenn]

Ok, will adapt it so it is always created

[gkrenn]

Removed it

[aorcholski]

I just try to understand the logic related to AG service.

I think we need NeedsService() function because of KSPM.

going up the call stack :

func (r *Reconciler) deleteCapability(ctx context.Context, agCapability capability.Capability) error {
-> if err := r.deleteService(ctx, agCapability); err != nil {
-> if r.dk.ActiveGate().NeedsService() {
		return nil
     }
-> func (ag *Spec) NeedsService() bool {
	return len(ag.Capabilities) > 0 ||
		ag.enabledDependencies.extensions ||
		ag.enabledDependencies.kspm      <---- depends on KSPM
    }     

So KSPM needs the AG service to exist.

In that case how do we create the AG service if KSPM is enabled?

dynakube/activegate/reconciler.go:Reconcile()

for _, agCapability := range capability.GenerateActiveGateCapabilities(r.dk) {
	if agCapability.Enabled() {
			return r.createCapability(ctx, agCapability)           

going up the call stack :

for _, agCapability := range capability.GenerateActiveGateCapabilities(r.dk) {
-> func NewMultiCapability(dk *dynakube.DynaKube) Capability {
-> if dk == nil || !dk.ActiveGate().IsEnabled() {
-> return len(ag.Capabilities) > 0 || ag.enabledDependencies.Any()
-> func (d dependencies) Any() bool {
	return d.extensions   <---- doesn't depend on KSPM
    }

we get disabled MultiCapability because KSPM has no meaning from AG capability point of view.

Then :

if agCapability.Enabled() {
-> func (capability *capabilityBase) Enabled() bool {
	return capability.enabled
    }

returns false and instance of AG is not created - good. Unfortunately this also means the AG service is not created - KSPM is unhappy, right?

[gkrenn]

@aorcholski Enabling KSPM standalone should not be possible. It is blocked by the validation webhook, as it requires enabled Kubernetes-monitoring capability.

If kubemon is enabled, the service will be created.

We could add kspm to the Any() function in the ActiveGate spec just to make sure in case we accidentally delete the check in the validation webhook. What is your opinion? @chrismuellner - As long as the check in the validation webhook is there everything would be fine, but modeling the dependency in the ActiveGate spec would be cleaner in my opinion:

func (d dependencies) Any() bool {
	return d.extensions || d.kspm
}

[chrismuellner]

We could add kspm to the Any() function in the ActiveGate spec just to make sure in case we accidentally delete the check in the validation webhook.

I think (hope) that's an unlikely scenario. If there are benefits to adding this validation in the Activegate spec as well then let's do it, otherwise let's not overcomplicate something that should either not be possible or handled by the validation webhook.

[aorcholski]

LGTM