docs(RFC): disruption controls by reason

[Bryce-Soghigian]

Fixes #924
Implementation of Preferred Approach: #991

Follow Up Items
In order to lower the scope of the doc, we have sanitized the following

• Representing Drift Reasons in the Reasons API
• Budget Observability document covering events, metrics, and new Resource Status

We will solve these problems as follow-ups to this design to keep the document concise describing the simple api changes and desired behaviors

How was this change tested?
NA

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8885837567

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 51 unchanged lines in 6 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.06%) to 78.793%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pkg/controllers/disruption/singlenodeconsolidation.go	1	84.21%
pkg/controllers/disruption/emptynodeconsolidation.go	1	95.31%
pkg/test/environment.go	2	97.26%
pkg/controllers/disruption/multinodeconsolidation.go	7	88.37%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/provisioner.go	16	79.39%
pkg/controllers/disruption/validation.go	24	74.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 8796364550:	0.06%
Covered Lines:	8345
Relevant Lines:	10591

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jonathan-innis]

Nice work! Thanks for taking this up! It's awesome to see progress towards this!

[charliedmcb]

I think this is a valuable, interesting feature.

I prefer to keep things where defaulting to all is still a simple case. However, I do like the ability to have extensibility for action specific settings in approach b.

I'm curious if there is still a reasonable way without overbearing the API with having those possible settings to. Could end up adding action profiles instead to budget.

[jonathan-innis]

/assign @njtran

[ellistarn]

Nice work on this! 🚀

[njtran]

Leaving just a couple of comments at the end. Really great work on this!! Will wait for an approval or more two before merging.

[jonathan-innis]

Does using [[_TOC_]] work so we don't have to make sure this constantly aligns with the naming/titles below? See: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47154661/how-can-i-create-a-table-of-content-in-gitlab-wiki

[Bryce-Soghigian]

https://github.blog/changelog/2021-04-13-table-of-contents-support-in-markdown-files/ from what I can see github doesn't natively support generating them and trying the [[_TOC_]] syntax but it did not generate what we are looking for.

For now, we can remove the TOC, or I can regenerate it with a separate tool once we are ready to merge this in.

[njtran]

/approve
/lgtm

Good work!!!

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Bryce-Soghigian, ellistarn, njtran

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 [ellistarn,njtran]

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