feat(actions): parametrized actions to scale workloads (#15505)

[ratulbasak]

Checklist:

• Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
• The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
• The title of the PR conforms to the Toolchain Guide
• I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
• I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
• Does this PR require documentation updates?
• I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
• I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
• I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
• My build is green (troubleshooting builds).
• My new feature complies with the feature status guidelines.
• I have added a brief description of why this PR is necessary and/or what this PR solves.
• Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
• Optional. For bug fixes, I've indicated what older releases this fix should be cherry-picked into (this may or may not happen depending on risk/complexity).

This feature request is about an extension of the argocd resource actions feature to support inputs on those actions (like the replica count if you have a custom action to scale replicas: enhancement proposal

[bunnyshell]

❗ Preview Environment undeploy from Bunnyshell failed

See: Environment Details | Pipeline Logs

Available commands (reply to this comment):

• 🚀 /bns:deploy to redeploy the environment
• ❌ /bns:delete to try again to remove the environment

[bunnyshell]

❌ Preview Environment deleted from Bunnyshell

Available commands (reply to this comment):

• 🚀 /bns:deploy to deploy the environment

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.73171% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.90%. Comparing base (9a738b2) to head (d6e2701).
⚠️ Report is 495 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cmd/argocd/commands/admin/settings.go	33.33%	11 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #20097      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   56.08%   59.90%   +3.81%     
==========================================
  Files         343      344       +1     
  Lines       57546    57752     +206     
==========================================
+ Hits        32275    34596    +2321     
+ Misses      22627    20393    -2234     
- Partials     2644     2763     +119     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ratulbasak]

Hello @crenshaw-dev, please look into this PR - an enhancement feature: #15505 which was already approved about a year ago. Could you please help me on how to move forward?

[nitishfy]

Few things here:

1. Can you update the PR description to provide details about which issue is this PR fixing?
2. I see a lot of commits from different authors (> 70). Are these intended or was there a problem when trying to rebase or perform other git operation? It looks like those commits might have come from performing a git operation.

[ratulbasak]

Few things here:

1. Can you update the PR description to provide details about which issue is this PR fixing?
2. I see a lot of commits from different authors (> 70). Are these intended or was there a problem when trying to rebase or perform other git operation? It looks like those commits might have come from performing a git operation.

I do not know about these commits tbh, they were added while rebasing.

[agaudreault]

LGTM. few little things that should require a codegen after, then I think this can be merged and improvements can be done in follow-up PRs if necessary. (a lot of comment/discussion on this PR and it starts to be hard to track)

[agaudreault]

@ratulbasak I pushed some change to move the validation to the lua script and fix the default value that was not working anymore. The reason behind the change is because we would need to add every kind of possible validation parameters such as min, max, regexp, etc.

UI could be improved in future PRs to use the "type" and display different kind of input field, but the backend API should not contain information specific for the validation (already done by Kubernetes)

[agaudreault]

LGTM

[ratulbasak]

@ratulbasak I pushed some change to move the validation to the lua script and fix the default value that was not working anymore. The reason behind the change is because we would need to add every kind of possible validation parameters such as min, max, regexp, etc.

UI could be improved in future PRs to use the "type" and display different kind of input field, but the backend API should not contain information specific for the validation (already done by Kubernetes)

Super!

[reggie-k]

LGTM!
Thanks for the patience with this @ratulbasak!