NETOBSERV: 1374 fix pascal case exception in sample

[jpinsonneau]

Description

Following Sara's comment I noticed I made a mistake in the sample CR.

We should use eBPF and IPFIX. Only the sample CR is affected.

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2457cb2) 66.76% compared to head (41f1ef6) 66.76%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #518   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.76%   66.76%           
=======================================
  Files          64       64           
  Lines        7523     7523           
=======================================
  Hits         5023     5023           
  Misses       2182     2182           
  Partials      318      318           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	66.76% <ø> (ø)

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.

[msherif1234]

yeah ran into the same with latest yesterday
/lgtm

[jpinsonneau]

@nathan-weinberg @Amoghrd I don't think you use this sample CR. Is it good for you to merge ?

[Amoghrd]

yeah we dont use this CR, unless deploying with make commands(which I dont use much personally)

[jpinsonneau]

Ok I'm merging this then 😃 thanks !

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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

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

[nathan-weinberg]

@jpinsonneau +1 to what @Amoghrd said but thank you for checking! 🙏