Add OpenAPIModelName() generation for v1alpha1 and lib/version types

[tmshort]

Use openapi-gen from k8s.io/kube-openapi to generate OpenAPIModelName() accessor functions and OpenAPI schema definitions.

• Add openapi-gen to bingo
• Add +k8s:openapi-gen and +k8s:openapi-model-package markers to pkg/operators/v1alpha1 and pkg/lib/version.
• Add a generate-openapi Makefile target.
• Remove broken empty +patchMergeKey tag from SubscriptionStatus.CatalogHealth that blocked generation.

The api_violations.report is a file created by openapi-gen, and it's required if we don't want to error out without fixing the violations. Because it's checked in, we can use it as part of the verify CI/review process to ensure nothing new is added.

Alternative to #476, which had in its description:

Description of the change:

This PR adds OpenAPIModelName() methods to all types in the operator-framework/api package that are referenced in OpenAPI schema definitions.
When Kubernetes serves OpenAPI schemas, the "/" character in type references gets URL-encoded to "~1". If the schema definition keys use the raw Go import path format (e.g., github.com/operator-framework/api/...) but references are URL-encoded (e.g., github.com~1operator-framework~1api~1...), lookups fail with errors like:

  error getting OpenAPISchema: SchemaError(...CSVDescription.apiservicedefinitions):
    unknown model in reference: "github.com~1operator framework~1api~1pkg~1operators~1v1alpha1.APIServiceDefinitions"

Adding OpenAPIModelName() makes openapi-gen use the canonical com.github... format for both definition keys and references, ensuring they match.

Motivation for the change:

This is a prerequisite fix for https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-76460

PR operator-framework/operator-lifecycle-manager#3765 added OpenAPIModelName() for types defined in the OLM package-server, but operators like Hive still fail because CSVDescription references types from this package (operator-framework/api) that don't have the method.

Assisted-By: Claude

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 116 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 22.13%. Comparing base (1b5c3ea) to head (1fc710b).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/operators/v1alpha1/zz_generated.model_name.go	0.00%	114 Missing ⚠️
pkg/lib/version/zz_generated.model_name.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #477       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   37.86%   22.13%   -15.74%     
===========================================
  Files          57       60        +3     
  Lines        4563     7869     +3306     
===========================================
+ Hits         1728     1742       +14     
- Misses       2678     5969     +3291     
- Partials      157      158        +1     

☔ 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.

[tmshort]

We should confirm what this name should be.

[tmshort]

@jianzhangbjz you had:
com.github.operator-framework.api.pkg.operators.lib.version

[tmshort]

I changed it to be:

com.github.operator-framework.api.pkg.operators.lib.version

[tmshort]

We should confirm what this name should be.

[tmshort]

@jianzhangbjz you had:
com.github.operator-framework.api.pkg.operators.v1alpha1

[tmshort]

I changed it to be:

com.github.operator-framework.api.pkg.operators.v1alpha1

[perdasilva]

/lgtm

In principle it seems fine. It would be good to get more on the motivation for this change in the PR description. Maybe some better formatting in the description (maybe bullet points) would be good too =D

[tmshort]

In principle it seems fine. It would be good to get more on the motivation for this change in the PR description. Maybe some better formatting in the description (maybe bullet points) would be good too =D

It's an alternative to #476

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [camilamacedo86]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment