Updates TektonInstallerSet to allow replica changes to a deployment

[sm43]

This now updates the installer set to allow replica changes, it does
it as follow

• when creating a deployment it compute hash of spec and add it as
  annotation
• while computing hash it set replicas to a const so that next time we
  can set replicas to same const and then calculate hash
• if hash is different which would mean something is changed in spec
  other than hash
• so it revert the spec to orignal and updates the replicas to what was
  on the cluster deployment
• it will allow replica change but revert any other change to spec as the
  hash would change

Closes #491

Signed-off-by: Shivam Mukhade smukhade@redhat.com

/cc @nikhil-thomas @vdemeester @savitaashture

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

• Includes tests (if functionality changed/added)
• Includes docs (if user facing)
• Commit messages follow commit message best practices

See the contribution guide for more details.

Release Notes

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-operator-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/kubernetes/tektoninstallerset/install.go	80.9%	57.4%	-23.4

[nikhil-thomas]

/hold

[nikhil-thomas]

holding this pr so that we can make sure that we all agree on the level of control the operator should have on resources managed by operator.

[nikhil-thomas]

@sm43 could you add the additional check where the exptetedhash is compared to annotation hash along with the exiting check.

[tekton-robot]

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-operator-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
pkg/reconciler/kubernetes/tektoninstallerset/install.go	80.9%	54.7%	-26.1

[nikhil-thomas]

/hold cancel

[nikhil-thomas]

/lgtm

[savitaashture]

@sm43 should we add unit test to cover pending scenario so that coverage increases

[pradeepitm12]

/lgtm

[vdemeester]

We will probably want to backport this to 0.50, 0.51 and 0.52 ? 😛

[savitaashture]

/hold

[savitaashture]

@sm43 should we add unit test to cover pending scenario so that coverage increases

@sm43 added /hold and just checking will you add testcase as part of this PR or another one?

[sm43]

@sm43 should we add unit test to cover pending scenario so that coverage increases

@sm43 added /hold and just checking will you add testcase as part of this PR or another one?

@savitaashture I will address the tests in a separate pr. :) we can merge this.

[savitaashture]

@sm43 should we add unit test to cover pending scenario so that coverage increases

@sm43 added /hold and just checking will you add testcase as part of this PR or another one?

@savitaashture I will address the tests in a separate pr. :) we can merge this.

Sure 👍

[savitaashture]

🎉

/lgtm

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: savitaashture, vdemeester

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 [savitaashture,vdemeester]

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