Fix generate HRQ CRD from markers

[erikgb]

While working on #285, I noticed that running make manifests updates the HRQ CRD. This also happens on the master branch, which I think is not intentional and wrong. This PR fixes this by regenerating the HRQ CRD.

The PR also marks the current HRQ as the storage version - which I discovered as missing when comparing the kubebuilder markers for the CRDs.

I think the difference is caused by a minor bug in controller-gen, and is related to the recently added print columns on HRQ. The columns include fields from the HRQ status, and I think there is some code in controller-gen assuming the CRD has a status subresource when including fields from status as print columns.

I really think we should have status as subresources - especially on HRQ, but I don't have the bandwidth to fix that.

/cc @adrianludwin

[mochizuki875]

@erikgb

I think the difference is caused by a minor bug in controller-gen, and is related to the recently added print columns on HRQ.

Thank you for your fix. It may have been caused by my fix #295 ...

I really think we should have status as subresources - especially on HRQ, but I don't have the bandwidth to fix that.

As you may know that, if we make status subresource, we can independently update status field using StatusClient which is member of client.Client.
(ex. we can update only status field using r.Status().Update().)

Although this use case dosn't seems to exist in HNC, it is generally recommended to make status subresource.
So it might be good to do it.
If needed, I can fix it for you.

[erikgb]

@mochizuki875 We use the status subresource in all other controllers I am involved in, so HNC is quite special in this sense. I have earlier looked at doing this in HNC, and I think it is not a simple task..... But good luck if you make an attempt! 👍

[mochizuki875]

@erikgb
That's for sure.
Although I don't think it's so important task at this point, I'll check the implementation and if it looks doable, I'll do it:)

[rjbez17]

/lgtm

@adrianludwin ?

[rjbez17]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: erikgb, rjbez17

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 [rjbez17]

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