🌱 Consolidate client option wrappers behind a shared internal backend

[yindia]

What does this do, and why do we need it?

Fixes #2888.

#2888 asks for one scalable pattern to wrap clients instead of adding a new wrapper for every option. Today NewDryRunClient, WithFieldOwner, and WithFieldValidation each ship their own near-identical Client and SubResourceClient implementation: embed a reader, re-implement every write method to push a single option into the per-call slice, forward the rest of the interface. Three copies of the same plumbing that all need updating whenever the Client interface grows a verb.

This PR moves all three onto one internal backend and deletes the duplicated wrapper types.

pkg/client/defaultoptions.go adds withInjectedOptions(c Client, defaults, forced writeOptions) Client, backed by clientWithOptions and subResourceClientWithOptions. writeOptions holds the option slices per write verb, including the subresource verbs.

Options apply in the order defaults -> per-call -> forced, so a per-call option overrides a default and a forced option wins over whatever the caller passed. That keeps each wrapper's existing behavior:

• WithFieldOwner and WithFieldValidation register their option as a default, so callers can still override it per call.
• NewDryRunClient registers DryRunAll as a forced option, so it cannot be overridden.

Each write method is implemented explicitly rather than promoted through embedding. If a new write verb is added to the Client interface, this file stops compiling until the verb is handled, instead of silently passing calls through without the configured options.

No public API or behavior changes. fieldowner.go, fieldvalidation.go, and dryrun.go now just call withInjectedOptions. New pkg/client/defaultoptions_test.go covers the default/forced precedence and subresource propagation; go test ./pkg/client/... passes.

[kubernetes-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: yindia
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign sbueringer for approval. For more information see the 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

[kubernetes-prow]

Welcome @yindia!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[kubernetes-prow]

Hi @yindia. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

Tip

We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain /lgtm and other bot rights. We recommend asking approvers on your previous PRs to sponsor you.

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-sigs/prow repository.