Layer enrichment: remove hard-coded pieces, add tests

[jotak]

No user-facing change.

(this PR requires to update the operator for configuring FLP)

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from jotak. 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:

• OWNERS

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 55 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (40b6948) 65.80% compared to head (cad6ded) 66.45%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/pipeline/transform/kubernetes/enrich.go	75.21%	24 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...peline/transform/kubernetes/informers/informers.go	16.00%	21 Missing ⚠️
...e/transform/kubernetes/informers/informers-mock.go	88.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
pkg/pipeline/transform/transform_network.go	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #579      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.80%   66.45%   +0.65%     
==========================================
  Files         102      103       +1     
  Lines        7445     7506      +61     
==========================================
+ Hits         4899     4988      +89     
+ Misses       2256     2225      -31     
- Partials      290      293       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	66.45% <67.64%> (+0.65%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[jpinsonneau]

I feel a bit confusing having these two arrays separated.

Why not having a single filters array similar to what we have in prometheus ?

flowlogs-pipeline/pkg/api/encode_prom.go

Lines 70 to 74 in 31e4180

	type MetricsFilter struct {
	Key string `yaml:"key" json:"key" doc:"the key to match and filter by"`
	Value string `yaml:"value" json:"value" doc:"the value to match and filter by"`
	Type string `yaml:"type" json:"type" enum:"MetricEncodeFilterTypeEnum" doc:"the type of filter match: exact (default), presence, absence or regex"`
	}

[jotak]

hmm that would force us to have in a common struct some values (fields) that are quite different, a single prefix in a case, or a name+namespace couple in the other .. we could of course force a generic structure for having both, but I'm not sure this is cleaner than the current solution (?)

[jotak]

/hold
as @OlivierCazade started a similar work on his side

[jotak]

superseded by #580