Add various functional options to ActionConfigGetter and ActionClientGetter constructors

[joelanford]

This PR adds

In ActionConfigGetter constructor:

• Use a custom mapper in the action config getter to map an object to the helm client's configured namespace
• Use a custom mapper in the action config getter to map an object to the namespace where the release secret is stored
• Configure whether or not the release secret will have an owner reference to the object for which the action.Configuration is generated.

These are useful to give users of this library more control to decouple release storage from install namespace.

In ActionClientGetter constructur:

• Append custom default functional options used to create action.Get, action.Install, action.Upgrade, action.Uninstall, and action.Rollback.

These are useful to give users of this library the ability to customize how the various methods of the default ActionInterface interact with Helm. One example use case here is setting Wait to true for uninstall/rollback to ensure that subsequent reconciliations do not encounter conflicting objects that are still being deleted.

Signed-off-by: Joe Lanford joe.lanford@gmail.com

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3532484677

• 109 of 117 (93.16%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 89.498%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
pkg/client/actionclient.go	65	67	97.01%
pkg/reconciler/reconciler.go	2	4	50.0%
pkg/client/actionconfig.go	42	46	91.3%

Totals
Change from base Build 3445575816:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	1713
Relevant Lines:	1914

---

💛 - Coveralls

[everettraven]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[everettraven]

Overall looks good to me.

Just have a couple questions/nits that are non-blocking (they can just be deemed irrelevant and we can move forward):

[porridge]

This PR looks great overall. The only thing that keeps me wondering is that I suspect the lack/presence of the default prefix for these fields is trying to convey something, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps I'm just not familiar enough with the code...