fix(ApplicationSet): Check strategy type to verify it's a progressive sync

[fcrespofastly]

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 Toolchain Guide
• 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).

Description

From ArgoCD Progressive-Syncs manual argocd supports two strategies for applicationSets, AllAtOnce or RollingSync. Being AllAtOnce the default when no strategy is selected.

On the other hand, it seems that within the appset controller logic, there's a path in the code: https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/blob/master/applicationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go#L213-L225

Where we do not check exhaustively the strategy type and thus:

strategy:
  type: AllAtOnce

Can cause an infinite reconciliation loop. See:

#14712
#22558

[bunnyshell]

❗ Preview Environment deployment failed on Bunnyshell

See: Environment Details | Pipeline Logs

Available commands (reply to this comment):

• 🚀 /bns:deploy to redeploy the environment
• ❌ /bns:delete to remove the environment

[rumstead]

@fcrespofastly thanks for the PR! some build and linting errors need to be addressed. Additionally, please add some tests, especially one that reproduces the bug.

[jbmothiki]

Yola

[fcrespofastly]

Hey folks! Just a quick not to let you know that I'm still working on it last week with ArgoCon and KubeCon was a bit busy, so didn't have much time to work on this.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 55.55556% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.02%. Comparing base (73495d0) to head (624771e).
Report is 19 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...cationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go	55.55%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #22563      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.96%   56.02%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         343      343              
  Lines       57527    57531       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        32197    32230      +33     
+ Misses      22679    22649      -30     
- Partials     2651     2652       +1     

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

[fcrespofastly]

Hey @rumstead 👋🏻

Updated the PR and added some tests. Let me know what you think. Does all of this make sense to you?

[rumstead]

Suggested change

	// It's only RollingSync if it's especifically set by the type
	// It's only RollingSync if the type specifically sets it

[rumstead]

Hey @rumstead 👋🏻

Updated the PR and added some tests. Let me know what you think. Does all of this make sense to you?

The code and tests make sense, I think it would be great if we can reproduce the bug via the reconcile loop and have a test that fails before your change and passes after. the current tests pass before and after your change.

[fcrespofastly]

Hey @rumstead 👋🏻
Updated the PR and added some tests. Let me know what you think. Does all of this make sense to you?

The code and tests make sense, I think it would be great if we can reproduce the bug via the reconcile loop and have a test that fails before your change and passes after. the current tests pass before and after your change.

Yeah I've been looking into it as well, it's just going to be tricky. To be clear with my change nothing should fail, it should still reconcile but not in a progressive sync fashion if not explicitly set.