Add typed printcolumn argument to derive macro

[cchndl]

Motivation

The raw json for the additional print columns is not not very nice to read, especially compared to the nice definition for the scale sub-resource.

Solution

Introduce the same structure from change #1656 for the printcolumn argument. I basically just traced the steps of that change for this one.

    printcolumn(
        name = "Spec",
        type_ = "string",
        description = "name of foo",
        json_path = ".spec.name"
    ),

Tests are still missing, I just wanted to know first whether I should include both empty/present printcolumns and both the raw-json way and the new one introduced here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 71.60494% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 76.2%. Comparing base (d7b8275) to head (003f668).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
kube-derive/src/custom_resource.rs	70.2%	23 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #1872     +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   76.3%   76.2%   -0.0%     
=======================================
  Files         88      89      +1     
  Lines       8408    8487     +79     
=======================================
+ Hits        6411    6465     +54     
- Misses      1997    2022     +25     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
kube-derive/src/lib.rs	0.0% <ø> (ø)
kube-derive/tests/crd_schema_test.rs	100.0% <ø> (ø)
kube-derive/tests/typed_subresource.rs	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
kube-derive/src/custom_resource.rs	81.3% <70.2%> (-2.9%)	⬇️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[clux]

Hey there, thanks for this. It does indeed remind me of #1656 . Does it support the old syntax or is it a breaking change?

I'll try to summon @Techassi to get some opinions 🙏

[Techassi]

I have been summoned, and I shall answer :)

I can take a look at the PR later and leave some comments if there is anything worth pointing out.

[Techassi]

Nicely done! Nothing major, just a few small things.

I wanted to tackle this, but didn't get around to it. So it is nice to see that someone else picked this up on their own 👍

[Techassi]

Does it support the old syntax or is it a breaking change?

I can confirm this is non-breaking and still supports to old raw JSON syntax after doing the review.

[cchndl]

Thanks for the quick feedback, sadly I was not able to come back to this earlier.
I updated the doc comments and tests according to @Techassi's recommendations and I added additional tests for checking that the raw json string and the new syntax are compatible in typed_subresources.rs, better names welcome :)

[Techassi]

I've run through you recent changes - nicely done. Everything from my comments was addressed. Sadly I cannot resolve my own comments, but I left comments indicating that they are resolved. Feel free to mark them as resolved (whoever is able to do that).

I think the PR should then be ready to go.

[doxxx93]

@cchndl Almost there! It looks like the only remaining issue is the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) sign-off.

Per the CONTRIBUTING.md, each commit needs to be signed off using the -s/--signoff flag on git commit to attest that you have the right to contribute the code.

You can fix this by amending your commits with:

git rebase HEAD~<number_of_commits> --signoff
git push --force-with-lease

@Techassi Thanks for the thorough review! Once the DCO check passes, I'll run the workflows.

[cchndl]

I think I made a mistake somewhere

[cchndl]

Sorry, I have not mixed merges and rebases until now, didn't know about --rebase-merges. But now at least it should be fine, even if I lost us the history of the pr...

[doxxx93]

@cchndl run just fmt please!

[doxxx93]

Thanks! fyi: @clux as techassi told it's ready for merge!

[cchndl]

Thank you for your patience! I hope it will go smoother next time.

[doxxx93]

Not at all! It's impressive that you tackled such a large task and saw it through to the end on your first contribution. Thank you for the great work!