MGDSTRM-10232 initial configuration to control the ic scope

[shawkins]

Adds a new stanza to the agent spec to control the scope of the ic NLBs.

Since we have a timed job for reconciliation, we don't need to add a specific event handler for the managedkafkaagent - an assumption we were already making about the profile logic.

[shawkins]

Looks like we're still prone to inconsistent test / mock behavior - changed the test to not need the direct mocking.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

91.7% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[MikeEdgar]

LGTM. My only comments are optional/purely cosmetic.

• Consider using network instead of net
• Rather than boolean _private use String visibility with enumeration Public and Private

[shawkins]

Consider using network instead of net

That's one vote for an annotation, one vote for network, and one vote for access.

Rather than boolean _private use String visibility with enumeration Public and Private

We want to leave open the possibility that this won't be a single case - there could be separate public and private configurations.

[shawkins]

To round things out here:

• If we switch to an annotation we'll need to update the managedkafkaagent sync logic as it currently only copies the spec. It shouldn't have the same problem as managedkafka with both control plane and data plane managed annotations.
• It probably doesn't matter what change we make to the spec, it will just be a throw-away once we have a better understanding of the pod. Since there's no real public usage of the crd that is fine.

To combine the above and most of the suggestions, how about just:

spec:
  access: Private

which we will likely throw away once we need refine things further.

[MikeEdgar]

To combine the above and most of the suggestions, how about just:

spec:
  access: Private

which we will likely throw away once we need refine things further.

I'm fine with this ^

[rareddy]

do we need changes here to reflect the above?

[shawkins]

do we need changes here to reflect the above?

Oh, I thought we said on the issue / standup before break, just to leave the pr as is because it's likely a throw away in any case.

[rareddy]

:)

[rareddy]

lgtm