openshift_connect: use kubernetes timeout settings

[cben]

WIP only because waiting for gem release. @moolitayer @agrare Please review.

Openshift half of ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes#10.
This PR is unnecessary if we merge #7, but is that safe to backport?

Depends on kubeclient additions ManageIQ/kubeclient#244 or backported ManageIQ/kubeclient#246

Tested:

• Exercised in rails console and refresh, events, SSA in manageiq, confirmed low enough values cause timeouts.
• Green against kubeclient from git
• core manageiq tests passed locally with this, but I don't think they cover anything relevant.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440950
@miq-bot add-label euwe/yes, fine/yes (actually we plan a 5.7.1 hotfix but I suppose we also want normal backports, so customer uprading will not lose hotfix functionality?)

[miq-bot]

@cben Cannot apply the following labels because they are not recognized: fine/yes (actually we plan a 5.7.1 hotfix but i suppose we also want normal backports, so customer uprading will not lose hotfix functionality?)

[cben]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440950
@miq-bot add-label euwe/yes, fine/yes

[miq-bot]

Checked commit cben@ffc6c98 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🏆

[miq-bot]

This pull request is not mergeable. Please rebase and repush.

[cben]

Obsoleted by #7 on master.
Keeping open for now as reminder that we'll need either this or #7 backported with ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes#10.

[simon3z]

@cben can you rebase / remove the [WIP]? Thanks.

[cben]

This is unmergable and unnecessary on master because #7.
But it's needed for uewe, fine. Should I make [UEWE], [FINE] versions of this, or make [UEWE], [FINE] versions of ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes#10 that include this? I think latter makes more sense.