fix: respect namespace in structured local-gateways config

[DCchoudhury15]

Changes

• Fixed a bug where the Operator ignored the namespace field when using the structured local-gateways configuration format.
• Updated UpdateNamespace logic in ingress_service.go to unmarshal and prioritize the plural local-gateways YAML array.
• Added unit tests in ingress_service_test.go to verify structured config parsing and ensure it takes precedence over legacy dot-notation config.

/kind bug

Fixes #2201

Release Note

Fixed an issue where the Knative Operator ignored the namespace field in the structured local-gateways configuration, defaulting incorrectly to istio-system.

[knative-prow]

Welcome @DCchoudhury15! It looks like this is your first PR to knative/operator 🎉

[knative-prow]

Hi @DCchoudhury15. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com 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.

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.

[DCchoudhury15]

@houshengbo i have created the pr up for review.

[houshengbo]

/ok-to-test

[DCchoudhury15]

@houshengbo all tests have passed waiting for approval

[houshengbo]

This func can be refactored a bit for better logical separation:

var (
	knativeLocalGateway = "knative-local-gateway"
	localGateways = "local-gateways"
)

func UpdateNamespace(u *unstructured.Unstructured, data map[string]string, namespace string) {
	if ns := resolveGatewayNamespace(data, namespace); ns != "" {
		u.SetNamespace(ns)
	}
}

func resolveGatewayNamespace(data map[string]string, ns string) string {
	if ns := fromStructuredGateways(data); ns != "" {
		return ns
	}

	return fromLegacyGateway(data, ns)
}

func fromStructuredGateways(data map[string]string) string {
	raw, ok := data[localGateways]
	if !ok {
		return ""
	}

	var gateways []localGatewayConfig
	if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(raw), &gateways); err != nil {
		return ""
	}

	for _, gw := range gateways {
		if gw.Name == knativeLocalGateway {
			return gw.Namespace
		}
	}

	return ""
}

func fromLegacyGateway(data map[string]string, ns string) string {
	key := fmt.Sprintf("local-gateway.%s.%s", ns, knativeLocalGateway)

	raw, ok := data[key]
	if !ok {
		return ""
	}

	fields := strings.Split(raw, ".")
	if len(fields) < 2 {
		return ""
	}

	return fields[1]
}

[houshengbo]

@DCchoudhury15 Could you refactor this func?

[DCchoudhury15]

@houshengbo i have done the changes up for review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 81.48148% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 63.45%. Comparing base (70d1cc0) to head (a482109).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...conciler/knativeserving/ingress/ingress_service.go	81.48%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2217      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   63.31%   63.45%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          49       49              
  Lines        1878     1899      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits         1189     1205      +16     
- Misses        597      600       +3     
- Partials       92       94       +2     

☔ 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.

[houshengbo]

/lgtm
/approve

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: DCchoudhury15, houshengbo

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [houshengbo]

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

[DCchoudhury15]

@houshengbo some ci tests were failing so made some changes up for review.

[houshengbo]

@DCchoudhury15 As long as you rebase the main branch, it should be good, since I updated the deps and manifests.

[DCchoudhury15]

@DCchoudhury15 As long as you rebase the main branch, it should be good, since I updated the deps and manifests.

i have rebased the main branch.

[houshengbo]

/lgtm