NETOBSERV-1513: Remove v1alpha1, deprecate v1beta1, store v1beta2

[jotak]

Description

Spring cleaning:

• Remove v1alpha1
• deprecate v1beta1
• store v1beta2

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).

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jotak: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1513 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Spring cleaning:

• Remove v1alpha1
• deprecate v1beta1
• store v1beta2

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).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[jpinsonneau]

Looks good to me, thanks !

[msherif1234]

do u need to also remove hack-crd-for-test from generate makefile rule and calls to hack/crd2csvSpecDesc.sh ?

[jotak]

do u need to also remove hack-crd-for-test from generate makefile rule and calls to hack/crd2csvSpecDesc.sh ?

we can remove it ... or keep it because we will probably need it again when we'll introduce a new API ?

I think better remove and add a comment saying when new APIs is added we use this route to work around storage version to keep UT working ?

[jotak]

/retest

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d3053bc) 57.68% compared to head (c11d720) 67.49%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #577      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   57.68%   67.49%   +9.80%     
==========================================
  Files          73       69       -4     
  Lines        9572     8192    -1380     
==========================================
+ Hits         5522     5529       +7     
+ Misses       3708     2322    -1386     
+ Partials      342      341       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	67.49% <100.00%> (+9.80%)	⬆️

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.

[jotak]

@msherif1234 hack disabled: c11d720

Note that hack/crd2csvSpecDesc.sh is a different thing and unrelated, we need to keep it (it helps to generate automatically specDescriptors for the CSV, which is used in the console OLM form, to make sure we don't forget anything there)

[msherif1234]

/lgtm

[jotak]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

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 [jotak]

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