[api] merge interpretation structs.

[ikaven1024]

Signed-off-by: yingjinhui yingjinhui@didiglobal.com

What type of PR is this?

/kind api-change

What this PR does / why we need it:
xxxInterpretation structs can be merged.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #2371

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign kevin-wangzefeng after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @kevin-wangzefeng in a comment when ready.

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

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

/assign @RainbowMango

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

This comment seems not to match the current operation.

[chaunceyjiang]

Will the degree of coupling be too high?

[RainbowMango]

xxxInterpretation structs can be merged.

Why? What's the benefit?

[ikaven1024]

xxxInterpretation structs can be merged.

Why? What's the benefit?

I can handle the script in one function.

https://github.com/ikaven1024/karmada/blob/609351cf6281e7da51f6f8e608b2a29d8776f47a/pkg/resourceinterpreter/configurableinterpreter/configurable.go#L154-L190

[RainbowMango]

The reason why I didn't use a common struct to describe the rules is script isn't the only way to represent the rules.
Each interpreter operation may be described in another easier way instead of script. The idea didn't present at current APIs, but you can see it in the original proposal. Except the lua script, people can specify the rule by Json rule:

// Fields indicates the fields that should be retained.
	// Each field describes a field in JsonPath format.
	// +optional
	Fields []string `json:"fields,omitempty"`

	// RetentionLua holds the Lua script that is used to retain runtime values to the desired specification.
	// The script should implement a function just like:
	//
	// function Retain(desiredObj, runtimeObj)
	//     desiredObj.spec.fieldFoo = runtimeObj.spec.fieldFoo
	//     return desiredObj
	// end
	//
	// RetentionLua only holds the function body part, take the `desiredObj` and `runtimeObj` as the function parameters or
	// global parameters, and finally retains a retained specification.
	// +optional
	RetentionLua string `json:"retentionLua,omitempty"`

In other words, each interpreter operation may have different customization methods respectively. I'm afraid using a common struct would be very hard to do so.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2732 (be9debd) into master (bcd7814) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2732      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   32.73%   32.73%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         199      199              
  Lines       19401    19401              
==========================================
- Hits         6351     6350       -1     
- Misses      12696    12697       +1     
  Partials      354      354              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	32.73% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/search/proxy/store/util.go	93.56% <0.00%> (-0.59%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[ikaven1024]

The reason why I didn't use a common struct to describe the rules is script isn't the only way to represent the rules. Each interpreter operation may be described in another easier way instead of script. The idea didn't present at current APIs, but you can see it in the original proposal. Except the lua script, people can specify the rule by Json rule:

// Fields indicates the fields that should be retained.
	// Each field describes a field in JsonPath format.
	// +optional
	Fields []string `json:"fields,omitempty"`

	// RetentionLua holds the Lua script that is used to retain runtime values to the desired specification.
	// The script should implement a function just like:
	//
	// function Retain(desiredObj, runtimeObj)
	//     desiredObj.spec.fieldFoo = runtimeObj.spec.fieldFoo
	//     return desiredObj
	// end
	//
	// RetentionLua only holds the function body part, take the `desiredObj` and `runtimeObj` as the function parameters or
	// global parameters, and finally retains a retained specification.
	// +optional
	RetentionLua string `json:"retentionLua,omitempty"`

In other words, each interpreter operation may have different customization methods respectively. I'm afraid using a common struct would be very hard to do so.

OK, Keep the api.