Fix previews in SSA mode when there are replacements due to immutable fields

[rquitales]

Proposed changes

This PR adds special handling for previews with SSA when we have a replacement (delete before create) operation. There is no easy way to tell the API server that the dry-run to be run is an object replacement. As such, a workaround that we can do is to send a different object name so the API server thinks we are creating a new object, so a already exists type error doesn't occur.

Note, because of how SSA creates work currently with upserts, we'll never face the AlreadyExists error, so we do not have to account for that in this PR.

As an aside, kubectl also supports delete before create replacements with the replace sub-command. A user would need to run kubectl replace --force -f . to recreate any resources that update an immutable field. kubectl does not support -dry-run=server with the --force flag and the follow error is shown --dry-run can not be used when --force is set since the API server does not support previewing this type of operation.

Related issues (optional)

Fixes: #2575

[github-actions]

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 10.00000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.60%. Comparing base (deae4dc) to head (d0486ed).

Files	Patch %	Lines
provider/pkg/await/await.go	10.00%	8 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3053      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.65%   36.60%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          71       71              
  Lines        9249     9259      +10     
==========================================
- Hits         3390     3389       -1     
- Misses       5522     5531       +9     
- Partials      337      339       +2     

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

[blampe]

Reasonable! It's too bad we can't know upfront whether we're about to replace or update. Another consequence of the engine not expecting upserts.

[EronWright]

I like this because it is targeted. Down the road I would advocate for simply using client-side validation during previews, to avoid the problems inherent to server-side dry-run such as missing CRDs, missing namespaces, missing admission webhooks, inability to preview a replacement, etc.

[pulumi-bot]

This PR has been shipped in release v4.14.0.