fix(discovery): add missing lua syntax and return to discovery (fixes #24257)

[jan-mrm]

of MonoVertex, Pipeline and InterStepBufferService. Added discovery tests

fixes #24257

PR #22835 introduced broken lua code in the discovery of

• numaflow.numaproj.io/InterStepBufferService
• numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex
• numaflow.numaproj.io/Pipeline

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 Title of the PR
• 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).

---

One open question that I came across is whether the spec is right here or should be removed:
Added by this PR #24036
I'm talking about this line and some more around that:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/discovery.lua

Line 31 in 1c5d7f1

if obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast" then

obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"
vs
obj.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"

The spec of the resource actually defines spec.metadata.annotations here but the tests have the metadata.annotations set and not spec.metadata.annotations:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/testdata/monovertex-paused.yaml

Lines 12 to 13 in 1c5d7f1

	annotations:
	numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies: "slow, fast"

[bunnyshell]

❌ Preview Environment deleted from Bunnyshell

Available commands (reply to this comment):

• 🚀 /bns:deploy to deploy the environment

[jan-mrm]

One open question that I came across is whether the spec is right here or should be removed: Added by this PR #24036 I'm talking about this line and some more around that:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/discovery.lua

Line 31 in 1c5d7f1

if obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast" then

obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"
vs
obj.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"
The spec of the resource actually defines spec.metadata.annotations here but the tests have the metadata.annotations set and not spec.metadata.annotations:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/testdata/monovertex-paused.yaml

Lines 12 to 13 in 1c5d7f1

	annotations:
	numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies: "slow, fast"

maybe @dpadhiar and @joshuase96 you can help to answer this? Or we leave it open since its whats been implemented.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.18%. Comparing base (1c5d7f1) to head (5b26ff5).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #24262      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.13%   60.18%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         348      348              
  Lines       59905    59905              
==========================================
+ Hits        36025    36053      +28     
+ Misses      20982    20972      -10     
+ Partials     2898     2880      -18     

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

[crenshaw-dev]

@jan-mrm I missed your comment before merging, will check with @juliev0 on the spec.metadata.annotations question.

[crenshaw-dev]

In the meantime, can you open cherry-picks for the relevant version(s) for this fix?

[jan-mrm]

@jan-mrm I missed your comment before merging, will check with @juliev0 on the spec.metadata.annotations question.

cool, thanks. no worries. was just something I came across while adding the test. Might be intended, might not 🙂

In the meantime, can you open cherry-picks for the relevant version(s) for this fix?

As far as I can see its only in 3.1 so here is that PR but I might have messed something up... #24268

[dpadhiar]

One open question that I came across is whether the spec is right here or should be removed: Added by this PR #24036 I'm talking about this line and some more around that:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/discovery.lua

Line 31 in 1c5d7f1

if obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast" then

obj.spec.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"
vs
obj.metadata.annotations["numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies"] == "fast"
The spec of the resource actually defines spec.metadata.annotations here but the tests have the metadata.annotations set and not spec.metadata.annotations:

argo-cd/resource_customizations/numaflow.numaproj.io/MonoVertex/actions/testdata/monovertex-paused.yaml

Lines 12 to 13 in 1c5d7f1

	annotations:
	numaflow.numaproj.io/allowed-resume-strategies: "slow, fast"

maybe @dpadhiar and @joshuase96 you can help to answer this? Or we leave it open since its whats been implemented.

You're right, spec should be removed since that is the incorrect path to the child's metadata. I will create a quick fix for this later this week. Thank you for finding that!