ISSUE-2420 add support for additional fields

[sga80]

Issue #2420

Description of changes:

• Support additional fields - encryptionType, keyId and retentionPeriodHours.
• All these fields are supported as an update operation similar to tags as these are not part of the create
• Below is the screenshot of a test with encryption enabled

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[ack-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sga80
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign michaelhtm for approval by writing /assign @michaelhtm in a comment. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[ack-prow]

Hi @sga80. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a aws-controllers-k8s 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.

Details

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/test-infra repository.

[sga80]

Commented out this code as I didn't want to check in the actual keyId. Is there anyway we still include this test without breaking E2E tests ?

[sga80]

@michaelhtm , can you please review?

[sga80]

@michaelhtm , can you please review this PR when you get a chance?

[michaelhtm]

Hello @sga80
Thank you for the contribution! We should probably discuss the best approach here.

[michaelhtm]

This approach, although technically correct, is breaking the CRD (removing fields).
Maybe the best thing to do would be to have new fields that go in Spec, and just mirror the ones in status..

cc: @a-hilaly @rushmash91 @knottnt

[rushmash91]

Agreed, having a similar field in status should be okay rather than removing from read only.

[ack-bot]

Issues go stale after 180d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 60d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.
Provide feedback via https://github.com/aws-controllers-k8s/community.
/lifecycle stale

[ack-bot]

Stale issues rot after 60d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 60d of inactivity.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.
Provide feedback via https://github.com/aws-controllers-k8s/community.
/lifecycle rotten