Add Orgs sharding for Blunderbuss

[dhaiducek]

Using a pointer lets sharding determine whether a config had been provided so they can be properly compared. If one is not provided, this also instantiates one in setDefaults(), which is called following the sharding logic.

Migrated from:

• Fix sharding by using a pointer for global Blunderbuss config kubernetes/test-infra#29405

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dhaiducek
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign michelle192837, petr-muller for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• cmd/deck/OWNERS
• pkg/OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @dhaiducek. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for k8s-prow ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	569d41b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/k8s-prow/deploys/66bfb6f20165b100081195d5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-237--k8s-prow.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[jmguzik]

/ok-to-test

[petr-muller]

/cc

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[dhaiducek]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[jmguzik]

@dhaiducek Are you still interested and willing to push it further?
I feel really bad about this one as I was involved here kubernetes/test-infra#28169 and I think we even pushed it, but missed detail about pointer. Correct me if I am wrong.

This code was reviewed so generally from my POV there is nothing major to comment. This change is huge though and it can affect again prow installations, including openshift one. I am just loudly thinking how we should approach the testing regarding the topic.

It would be ideal to test it in some kind of puppy environment, but it's not straightforward to setup, but maybe worth a try.

[dhaiducek]

@dhaiducek Are you still interested and willing to push it further?

Hey @jmguzik! Yes, I'm willing to dive back into it--it's still relevant for us. No hard feelings--I got pretty gun-shy myself when it merged and broke things and had to be reverted, and I know it's a massive change. But yes, as I recall it broke last time because the implementation didn't use a pointer for the global config and didn't correctly identify when another global config wasn't specified.

I wouldn't know the first thing about setting up a sandbox Prow env, but I can try or let me know if there's anything I can do to help! Before, if I'm looking at the thread correctly, it failed during the rehearsal CI and never made it into production: https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/CBN38N3MW/p1683036380568929

[jmguzik]

I'll test that on puppy env during next shift week to see if the current impl behaves 😉