Move InstanceHa Enabling/Disabling to own controller

[fwiesel]

The instance ha controller will eventually move out to the instance-ha service
itself. But for now, we keep it as a stand in to reflect the spec value
over the https api.

[fwiesel]

Based on top of #251.

[github-actions]

Merging this branch will increase overall coverage

Impacted Packages	Coverage Δ	🤖
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/api/v1	0.00% (ø)
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/cmd	0.00% (ø)
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller	63.05% (+1.08%)	👍

---

Coverage by file

Changed files (no unit tests)

Changed File	Coverage Δ	Total	Covered	Missed	🤖
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/api/v1/eviction_types.go	0.00% (ø)	0	0	0
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/api/v1/hypervisor_types.go	0.00% (ø)	0	0	0
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/cmd/main.go	0.00% (ø)	0	0	0
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/gardener_node_lifecycle_controller.go	71.43% (ø)	56	40	16
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/hypervisor_instance_ha_controller.go	81.40% (+81.40%)	43 (+43)	35 (+35)	8 (+8)	🌟
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/onboarding_controller.go	54.66% (-0.28%)	247 (-6)	135 (-4)	112 (-2)	👎
github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/utils.go	78.26% (+4.35%)	46	36 (+2)	10 (-2)	👍

Please note that the "Total", "Covered", and "Missed" counts above refer to code statements instead of lines of code. The value in brackets refers to the test coverage of that file in the old version of the code.

Changed unit test files

• github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/hypervisor_instance_ha_controller_test.go
• github.com/cobaltcore-dev/openstack-hypervisor-operator/internal/controller/onboarding_controller_test.go

[notandy]

This is not really helpful condition type. Either you want a status bool that reflects the HA service (is-state) of ha enabled or not, and/or you introduce a condition which reflects the communication to the HA service (e.g. HighAvailabilitySynced), which is false in case something gone wrong.

[fwiesel]

Either you want a status bool that reflects the HA service (is-state) of ha enabled or not,

I don't follow. The condition should do exactly that: It should reflect the current state of HA being enabled or not.

and/or you introduce a condition which reflects the communication to the HA service (e.g. HighAvailabilitySynced), which is false in case something gone wrong.

I could add that as well, but I was hoping that this controller would be only temporary, and that condition would then never get set, as the HA service would reflect itself it HA actually enabled, or not.