Remove same-not-same-labels

[tssurya]

We have been extensively re-designing our tenancy use cases and its clear we won't be using same and notSame labels: #178 (comment)
Let's remove this from our API before it hits Beta.
See FUP issues that need to be fixed once this merges in : #197

We had a certain asymmetry around how namespaces in subject and namespaces in peers are used. This was because the namespaces in subject was a simple namespaceSelector while the one in the peer was a struct type with namespaceSelector, sameLabels and notSameLabels. However since we are removing sameLabels and notSameLabels there is no need for namespaces in peer to be a struct, we can just make this namespaceSelector thus bringing it closer to how it looks in the subject.

namespaces:
   matchLabels:

and

pods:
   namespaceSelector:
     matchLabels:
   podSelector:
     matchLabels:

if that makes it confusing ^ we can think of alternatives

[k8s-ci-robot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	4d5dd78
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api/deploys/6601cdc9ffb5d30008fc09f3
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-196--kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api.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.

[tssurya]

/hold
need to remove conformance plumbing and need to bring it up in upstream meeting before merging this.

[tssurya]

/hold cancel

[astoycos]

/hold

Until the work as part of the Tenancy NPEP ends up as an actual API change PR, I'll let @npinaeva remove this hold

[danwinship]

eh, we know we don't want this tenancy API, so let's get rid of it

[danwinship]

Field name (Namespaces) and json field name (namespaceSelector) don't match.

With this PR, we have:

• Namespaces in AdminNetworkPolicySubject
• NamespaceSelector in NamespacedPod
• (not clear which one you meant) in AdminNetworkPolicyIngressPeer/AdminNetworkPolicyEgressPeer

This seems like it could be confusing... it was definitely less confusing with NamespacedPeer there because then a peer had either

- namespaces:
    namespaceSelector: ...

or

- pods:
    podSelector: ...

Maybe we should keep NamespacedPeer even though it's mostly vestigial, just to preserve the symmetry? (Or maybe not? Maybe it's annoying of us to force users to have to include that extra level?)

(If we do that here, we should probably do the same thing in Subject).

[tssurya]

yeah so I wanted to make this the same as what's in the subject today.. so don't make users go through that extra step/hoop for no reason,
btw nice catch on the naming diff ..
Let me rebase this PR

[tssurya]

al'right so in the latest update this is what I did:

subject and peer are symmetric now in how we express namespaces and pods:

namespaces:
   matchLabels:

pods:
   namespaceSelector:
     matchLabels:
   podSelector:
     matchLabels:

[k8s-ci-robot]

PR needs rebase.

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.

[danwinship]

/lgtm
/approve

not doing "/hold cancel" because I'm not totally sure why it's held, but I think it's ok to merge

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: danwinship, tssurya

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 [danwinship]

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

[astoycos]

/hold cancel

Let's get rid of this unwanted API

/lgtm thanks @tssurya