Set GitHub release as latest if target release is highest semver

[embik]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR attempts to implement heuristics to determine if a GitHub release created by krel (and other tools using pkg/announce?) should be marked as "latest". It's an overdue follow-up to the extension of release-sdk in kubernetes-sigs/release-sdk#288 that added a field to mark a GitHub release as latest.

The idea here is: Unless a release is a pre-release, we start with the assumption that "our" release is the latest one. Since we already query the first page of GitHub releases for determining if this is an existing or new release, my changes now extend that loop and compare our version to the already existing releases by doing a semver parse and comparison.

As soon as we have determined our release is not the latest, this check will be skipped.

Since there doesn't seem to be an easy way to test krel, I think this makes sense but I hope it gets scrutinised appropriately during review.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Towards kubernetes/kubernetes#119472

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Mark GitHub release as latest if no newer releases were found

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @embik!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/release 🎉. 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/release 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. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @embik. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

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.

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/test-infra repository.

[embik]

/cc @xmudrii

[cpanato]

can we add tests?

[cpanato]

/ok-to-test

[embik]

can we add tests?

Sure thing. I'll need to figure out where I can place tests since the pkg/announce package doesn't have them, but I'll try to find a way to test this.

[xmudrii]

Thank you for this contribution, @embik!
I left a comment about if we should consider an alternative approach, but even this looks fine so we can give it a try. Just please add tests as requested by @cpanato and let us know if you need any help with that.

[xmudrii]

@cpanato I looked into adding tests together with @embik and I don't think it's doable at the moment. This package doesn't follow our usual pattern of using mock-able interfaces, so writing tests for it would require significant effort, mainly to refactor the whole package to adhere to the pattern that we use elsewhere.

This is also a bit though situation, even if @embik adds tests, the actual calls to GitHub will be mocked and we wouldn't know if it works properly. We should try to do some coordinated test in production, e.g. try this for some release that's not that much time sensitive.

I propose accepting this without tests once we're happy with the code and creating a follow up issue to refactor the package and write tests for it.

[cpanato]

@cpanato I looked into adding tests together with @embik and I don't think it's doable at the moment. This package doesn't follow our usual pattern of using mock-able interfaces, so writing tests for it would require significant effort, mainly to refactor the whole package to adhere to the pattern that we use elsewhere.

This is also a bit though situation, even if @embik adds tests, the actual calls to GitHub will be mocked and we wouldn't know if it works properly. We should try to do some coordinated test in production, e.g. try this for some release that's not that much time sensitive.

I propose accepting this without tests once we're happy with the code and creating a follow up issue to refactor the package and write tests for it.

thanks

[xmudrii]

I created #3565 to follow up on refactoring the package

[xmudrii]

After doing extensive rubber ducking session with Marvin, this looks fine to me. Thank you very much for bearing with my comments, and for this contribution of course!
/lgtm
/approve
/hold
@cpanato Are we good to merge this with tests to follow up later on?

[cpanato]

if this wil not impact in the existing workflow i am fine

/lgtm
/hold @xmudrii lift when you are ready

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cpanato, embik, xmudrii

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [cpanato,xmudrii]

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

[xmudrii]

Thank you once again, @embik!
/hold cancel