🐛 Fix ServerMetadata Not Applied to Bastion in OpenStackCluster

[namgon-kim]

• Fixed issue where spec.bastion.spec.serverMetadata was not set in bastion.
• Updated bastionToInstanceSpec to apply serverMetadata in InstanceSpec.

What this PR does / why we need it:
Fixes an issue where spec.bastion.spec.serverMetadata in OpenStackCluster was not applied as metadata to OpenStack instances. This change ensures that server metadata is set during bastion creation.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #2177

Special notes for your reviewer:

1. Please check if any other parts of the repository require updates to serverMetadata outside of this change.

TODOs:

• squashed commits

/hold

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: namgon-kim (3b57409)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @namgon-kim!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @namgon-kim. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	3b57409
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack/deploys/6720e1c055f4e50008b34378
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2179--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[EmilienM]

@mdbooth how did we deal with PRs only for stable releases?

The least minimum is to retitle it to mention that.
I'm not against the idea but this has a cost, for maintenance and future cherry-pick conflicts when doing backports on other things.

[mdbooth]

/ok-to-test

[EmilienM]

The issue is fixed in main and is unreleased now:

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack/blob/1e39a380a979c6b3ac9a182e25749eab83740ac5/controllers/openstackcluster_controller.go#L566C25-L566C66

cluster-api-provider-openstack/controllers/openstackmachine_controller.go

Line 481 in 1e39a38

ServerMetadata: openStackMachineSpec.ServerMetadata,

So I'm fine fixing it only stable branches.

[EmilienM]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-test

[mdbooth]

Looks like the linter broke in the stable branch :( How did that happen without making the tests fail?

[namgon-kim]

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-openstack-test

[namgon-kim]

/retest-required

[namgon-kim]

I’ve noticed that the tests are failing due to linter errors across the project. Is there any specific action I need to take to resolve this?

I ran the linter locally and got the following results:

$ make -C hack/tools bin/kustomize
$ make -C hack/tools bin/controller-gen
$ make -C hack/tools bin/conversion-gen
$ make -C hack/tools bin/mockgen
$ make -C hack/tools bin/gen-crd-api-reference-docs
$ make -C hack/tools bin/golangci-lint
$ hack/tools/bin/golangci-lint run -v --fast=false
INFO [config_reader] Config search paths: [./ /home/dev/workspaces/cluster-api-provider-openstack /home/dev/workspaces /home/dev /home /] 
INFO [config_reader] Used config file .golangci.yml 
INFO [lintersdb] Active 47 linters: [asasalint asciicheck bidichk bodyclose cyclop dogsled dupword durationcheck errcheck exportloopref forbidigo gci goconst gocritic gocyclo godot gofmt gofumpt goheader goimports gomodguard goprintffuncname gosec gosimple govet importas ineffassign makezero misspell nakedret nestif nilerr noctx nolintlint prealloc predeclared revive rowserrcheck sqlclosecheck staticcheck stylecheck thelper unconvert unparam unused wastedassign whitespace] 
INFO [loader] Using build tags: [e2e]             
INFO [loader] Go packages loading at mode 575 (deps|files|imports|types_sizes|compiled_files|exports_file|name) took 4.045486744s 
INFO [runner/filename_unadjuster] Pre-built 0 adjustments in 27.733474ms 
INFO [linters_context/goanalysis] analyzers took 0s with no stages 
INFO [runner] Issues before processing: 1047, after processing: 0 
INFO [runner] Processors filtering stat (out/in): cgo: 1047/1047, autogenerated_exclude: 816/816, nolint: 0/18, filename_unadjuster: 1047/1047, path_prettifier: 1047/1047, skip_files: 816/1047, exclude: 816/816, exclude-rules: 18/816, skip_dirs: 816/816, identifier_marker: 816/816 
INFO [runner] processing took 70.727961ms with stages: exclude-rules: 35.551671ms, identifier_marker: 19.235856ms, nolint: 5.942609ms, path_prettifier: 4.489669ms, autogenerated_exclude: 4.091699ms, skip_dirs: 785.717µs, skip_files: 391.232µs, cgo: 151.051µs, filename_unadjuster: 84.952µs, max_same_issues: 1.006µs, fixer: 342ns, exclude: 319ns, sort_results: 282ns, uniq_by_line: 277ns, diff: 264ns, severity-rules: 217ns, max_from_linter: 199ns, path_prefixer: 172ns, source_code: 166ns, path_shortener: 139ns, max_per_file_from_linter: 122ns 
INFO [runner] linters took 2.92052316s with stages: goanalysis_metalinter: 2.849671785s 
INFO File cache stats: 80 entries of total size 675.0KiB 
INFO Memory: 71 samples, avg is 50.0MB, max is 105.6MB 
INFO Execution took 7.00053684s

@EmilienM @mdbooth
could you please advise on how to proceed?

[mdbooth]

@namgon-kim I fixed the linter issue in #2211. Do you want to try rebasing this on top of current release-0.10 if you still need this?

[EmilienM]

I took care of the rebasing, so we can produce a release on v0.10

[EmilienM]

/lgtm
/approve

I'll hold cancel when CI is passing

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: EmilienM

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 [EmilienM]

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

[EmilienM]

/hold cancel