[feat] Support endpoint slices

[scottd018]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Fixes #1172 to address endpoint slices in Kubernetes.

Which issue this PR fixes:

fixes #1172, adds endpoint slices as an optional configuration when starting the controllers.

Special notes for your reviewer:

Support endpoint slices

PR Readiness Checklist:

Complete these before marking the PR as ready to review:

• [ x ] the CHANGELOG.md release notes have been updated to reflect any significant (and particularly user-facing) changes introduced by this PR

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[scottd018]

@mflendrich I have a decent start to add endpoint slices, before a final refactor. I'm having some problems running integration tests in my environment, however I suspect the issue to be environmental. Was hoping I can let the pipeline take care of this check as to save some time in troubleshooting, however it looks as if I need to have the workflow manually kicked off because I am a first time contributor.

Are you able to help here? Thanks!

[mflendrich]

Are you able to help here? Thanks!

Done 👍

Feel free to file a bug whenever you think that the test does not work in your environment - maybe that's something we can (or even should) fix.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1608 (c4ad2d9) into next (0a503e5) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 36.03%.

❗ Current head c4ad2d9 differs from pull request most recent head f0f6e56. Consider uploading reports for the commit f0f6e56 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             next    #1608   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   46.13%   46.14%           
=======================================
  Files          71       71           
  Lines        6745     6833   +88     
=======================================
+ Hits         3112     3153   +41     
- Misses       3262     3312   +50     
+ Partials      371      368    -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-test	46.14% <36.03%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
internal/manager/setup.go	54.12% <8.69%> (-12.54%)	⬇️
internal/store/store.go	45.09% <33.33%> (-0.52%)	⬇️
internal/parser/parser.go	55.88% <42.85%> (-4.00%)	⬇️
internal/manager/config.go	92.62% <100.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
internal/sendconfig/common_workflows.go	65.95% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/proxy/clientgo_cached_proxy_resolver.go	61.58% <0.00%> (+1.32%)	⬆️
...trollers/configuration/zz_generated_controllers.go	34.63% <0.00%> (+2.03%)	⬆️
internal/parser/ingressrules.go	66.66% <0.00%> (+7.14%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0a503e5...f0f6e56. Read the comment docs.

[scottd018]

Are you able to help here? Thanks!

Done 👍

Feel free to file a bug whenever you think that the test does not work in your environment - maybe that's something we can (or even should) fix.

Thanks @mflendrich ! Looks like the integration test did run and pass (without the new endpoint slice logic), so I think this is probably something specific to my environment. I've pushed up the new integration test. If you can, kick it off again and in the meantime I can see about filing an issue for user-specific environments and push that up as well.

[scottd018]

@mflendrich This is ready for code review. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like a discussion or clarification on, or anything that you feel needs fixed. Happy to push new commits to satisfy your requirements.

[mflendrich]

@scottd018

GH has automatically closed this PR because we've deleted the next branch.

Could you please change the target branch of this PR from next to main and reopen it? 🙏 Only the author can do it.
The closure of this PR is NOT because we don't want to merge this PR.

edit: apparently, in this case GH doesn't allow for changing the target branch. If you are unable to set the target branch to main, could you please recreate this PR, targetting main this time? Thank you!

[scottd018]

@mflendrich requested a new PR #1678 for this. Also refactored a bit to meet the changes in the main branch.