feat(data engine): Add the VolumeAttributesClass feature

[rybas-dv]

Why is this PR required? What issue does it fix?:
The OEP discussed the process of implementing the VAC, in this PR a possible implementation.

What this PR does?:
This PR adds the ability to support VAC to the controller for k8s clusters with and without VAC support.

Does this PR require any upgrade changes?:
Kubernetes CSI Sidecar Containers version need to be updated.

If the changes in this PR are manually verified, list down the scenarios covered::

Any additional information for your reviewer? :
Please help me understand how to implement integration tests to verify that VAC applied on cgroup /sys/fs/cgroup/ correctly.

Checklist:

• Fixes #
• PR Title follows the convention of <type>(<scope>): <subject>
• Has the change log section been updated?
• Commit has unit tests
• Commit has integration tests
• (Optional) Are upgrade changes included in this PR? If not, mention the issue/PR to track:
• (Optional) If documentation changes are required, which issue on https://github.com/openebs/openebs-docs is used to track them:

[rybas-dv]

I checked these options manually on cluster 1.34.3 without integration testing:

apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-low
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "20"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "20000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-high
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "50000"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "5000000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-comment
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  # qosIopsLimit: ""
  qosBandwithPerSec: "7000000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-iops-max
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "max"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "7000000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-zero
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "0"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "7000000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-mi
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "10"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "7000Mi"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-duplicate
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "10"
  qosIopslimit: "20"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "7000Mi"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-directional
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsReadLimit: "100"
  qosIopsWriteLimit: "200"
  qosBandwithReadPerSec: "7000Mi"
  qosBandwithWritePerSec: "8000Mi"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-unlim
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "max"
  qosBandwithPerSec: "max"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-conflict
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  qosIopsLimit: "max"
  qosIopsReadLimit: "1000"
---
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
kind: VolumeAttributesClass
metadata:
  name: lvm-qos-wrong-key
driverName: local.csi.openebs.io
parameters:
  wrong: "1"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.46%. Comparing base (ac7b565) to head (2dbedcb).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #444   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    98.46%   98.46%           
========================================
  Files            2        2           
  Lines          979      979           
========================================
  Hits           964      964           
  Misses           8        8           
  Partials         7        7           

Flag	Coverage Δ
bddtests	98.46% <ø> (ø)

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[tiagolobocastro]

Thanks @rybas-dv for your great work and your patience in the discussions

[rybas-dv]

Thanks @rybas-dv for your great work and your patience in the discussions

Thank you for what you do, it's very important. I was glad to make my small contribution.

[abhilashshetty04]

@rybas-dv , Can you please squash commits.

[tiagolobocastro]

@rybas-dv fyi there was missing code gen in ci, so this us being added in my pr: fe7be39
ptal if you can

[rybas-dv]

@rybas-dv fyi there was missing code gen in ci, so this us being added in my pr: fe7be39 ptal if you can

Thanks for this. I did the previous version manually and missed this point. I built the operator and tested it locally with your additions, and it also works correctly.

[tiagolobocastro]

@rybas-dv fyi there was missing code gen in ci, so this us being added in my pr: fe7be39 ptal if you can

Thanks for this. I did the previous version manually and missed this point. I built the operator with your additions and it works correctly.

Awesome thank you, I'll go ahead and merge my pr then.

There was prior changes missing as well (for the ThinPool)! I've added the auto-generate steps to the CI, so hopefully should be good from on on.