fix(provisioning): Add ownerRef to provisioned volumes

[Gufran]

Pull Request template

Please, go through these steps before you submit a PR.

Why is this PR required? What issue does it fix?:

Currently the volumes hang around when the node is deleted, which leads to operational toil and alerts. Since the node and the csinode are both gone, it is safe to assume that the actual volume is also lost, in that case we can rely on the built in mechanism to clear the stale references. This is how local-static-provisioner does it as well.

What this PR does?:

Add ownerRef to volumes

Does this PR require any upgrade changes?:

no

If the changes in this PR are manually verified, list down the scenarios covered::

none

Any additional information for your reviewer? :

none

Checklist:

• Fixes #
• PR Title follows the convention of <type>(<scope>): <subject>
• Has the change log section been updated?
• Commit has unit tests
• Commit has integration tests
• (Optional) Are upgrade changes included in this PR? If not, mention the issue/PR to track:
• (Optional) If documentation changes are required, which issue on https://github.com/openebs/openebs-docs is used to track them:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.46%. Comparing base (8feeaa0) to head (b7e5ca4).
⚠️ Report is 159 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #436      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    98.66%   98.46%   -0.20%     
===========================================
  Files            2        2              
  Lines          673      979     +306     
===========================================
+ Hits           664      964     +300     
- Misses           5        8       +3     
- Partials         4        7       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
bddtests	98.46% <ø> (-0.20%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[abhilashshetty04]

Hi @Gufran , We have added fix sometime back: #413

Basically we cleanup lvmvolume CR if we can't find the k8s node in the cluster.

[Gufran]

thanks for pointing it out. I'll update our version and see if that helps. any specific reason to not use owner references?

[tiagolobocastro]

thanks for pointing it out. I'll update our version and see if that helps. any specific reason to not use owner references?

One downside could be user would have to recreate the CRs if they also move the disk to another node?

What about the lvmnode CR btw?

I'm probably ok with getting this in, but not enabled by default

[Gufran]

One downside could be user would have to recreate the CRs if they also move the disk to another node?

This is much more likely to happen in a cloud infra compared to what I deal with on a daily basis. Didn't occur to me to think about that!

What about the lvmnode CR btw?
I'm probably ok with getting this in, but not enabled by default

I can update lvmnode as well and put this change behind a config that is disabled by default. Will update the PR soon.

[abhilashshetty04]

thanks for pointing it out. I'll update our version and see if that helps. any specific reason to not use owner references?

Fix which i pointed out will work if user deletes PVC whose lvmvolumes are in nodes which are not in the cluster anymore. I think we cleaning up backend volumes when PVC still exist does not seem right.