Allow multiple nodes have templates (use local storage)

[Atoms]

Issue #, if available:
fixes #451

• Adjusted order of how scheduling happens

  • First we determine if we have usable template (fail fast if not)

• If we have usable template, determine how we need to schedule

  • if Target is provided schedule on that node if template is there
  • if Target and allowedNodes missing assume we want all nodes to use in scheduling (discover all nodes)
  • if templates are on more nodes then is in allowedNodes schedule only on allowedNodes
  • if templates missing on some allowedNodes still continue to schedule on nodes where template exists.

LocalStorage:

• If localstorage (we have no easy way to determine if template is no localstorage):
  • multiple templates can be found
  • assign options.Node same as options.Target as we will use template from same node.
  • templateID and SourceNode cannot be used in this scenario
• If !localstorage
  • only 1 template can be found, if multiple found fail
  • schedule vm on any allowedNode (either Target or allowedNodes or discovered nodes)
  • templateID and SourceNode only can be used in this scenario

Fixed existing tests to reflect multiple scenarios (moving out templateID and SourceNode from setupReconcilerTest

• fixed yamlfmt

createVM had became too complex (gocyclo) as i've written in code for now it should be function to revisit and get into smaller chunks.

[github-actions]

Tests

Please note that running unit and e2e tests requires manual approval from a team member.

e2e tests

We use labels to control which e2e tests contexts are run:

Label	Behaviour
none	Run Generic tests only
e2e/none skip all e2e tests (documentation etc) - overrides all e2e/* labels	Do not run any e2e tests
e2e/flatcar run Flatcar e2e tests	Add Flatcar tests

ℹ️ Ask a team member to add the requested labels if you don't have enough permissions.

[Atoms]

did more intensive testing, not all cases now work, so will be making some changes there.

[Atoms]

fully reworked logic is now pushed, also updated description.

[wikkyk]

Please make better use of validation rules instead of the overriding logic or erroring out. Early failure is better UX.

Make sure the examples are still correct.

This feature deserves documentation :)

This is close. I like the overall idea and implementation but it can be simplified. Please avoid just reformatting unrelated files as that makes the PR larger and thus harder to review plus it can mess up rebasing/reverting/... .

[wikkyk]

Found, that .spec.Target is obsolete (not needed complexity increase) as we can achieve same with adding one allowedNode. So took advantage and removed few lines to remove .spec.Target. (maybe i should leave it for backwards compatibility and throw deprecation warning)

I'm not ok with this. It's a breaking change. Instead, you could add a validation rule that both Target and allowedNode cannot both be set and mark Target deprecated. Then add a note to #293 to remove Target.

[wikkyk]

I think this is very close. Please update go.mod so that the test suite can run.

I would like @mcbenjemaa or @65278 to give this a look as it's a fairly large change requiring a second pair of eyes.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
2 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
82.2% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Atoms]

rebased on main