Upgrade kdp to v0.15.0-beta.1

[maqiuyujoyce]

Change description

Fixes b/309175495

• Made a local copy of K8s core ResourceRequirements type to avoid adding new fields into ControllerResource and NamespacedControllerResource.
• Replaced Watches() function with WatchesRawSource() function in controllers. Updated the parameter for Watches() function.
• Added a non-nil cache to instantiate source.Kind (⚠️ Refactor source/handler/predicate packages to remove dep injection kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime#2120).
• Updated the test kubeclient in namecheck_test.go and upgrade_test.go.
• Updated singleResourceClient and errorClient to match the latest interface of the controller-runtime client.
• Removed the configuration of GoHeaderFilePath from deepcopy-gen and client-gen. The line of code turns out to be unnecessary.
• Updated the client builders for the test clients.
• Updated the registeration of the webhook server.
• The following generated files are also changed:
  • The clientset/doc.go is removed (kubernetes/code-generator@8b5f587).
  • The instantiation of the resource and kind variables in the generated files under clientset is changed.

Tests you have done

• Run make ready-pr to ensure this PR is ready for review.
• [N/A] Perform necessary E2E testing for changed resources.

• make test passed.
• Deployed the controllers locally and successfully created a PubSubTopic.

[justinsb]

LGTM except for the resources.claims change. I'm guessing this was introduced upstream in k8s and we're reusing the k8s type here. I'm also guessing we would have problems if someone actually set this new value (?). Maybe we want to define our own version of resources so we don't pick up the new "claims" field?

[maqiuyujoyce]

Hi @justinsb , thank you for reviewing!

I'm guessing this was introduced upstream in k8s and we're reusing the k8s type here.

Yes, claims field was introduced because the upstream type in K8s added it: kubernetes/api@v0.25.0...v0.27.2#diff-04e78d7bfddcb8b0b0fb2b950dbefcceb0af25bd827bfb41721f1280810a160aR2345.

I'm also guessing we would have problems if someone actually set this new value (?). Maybe we want to define our own version of resources so we don't pick up the new "claims" field?

I'm not familiar with this feature enough to determine if it'll be problematic or not off the top of my head, so agreed we should play it safe. I made a local copy of this type without the claims field.

[justinsb]

Thanks @maqiuyujoyce - lgtm with the embedding of the resource type!

/approve
/lgtm

Looks like it'll need a rebase on go.mod though

[justinsb]

/approve
/lgtm

[google-oss-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb, maqiuyujoyce

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 [justinsb,maqiuyujoyce]

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