🐛 OCPBUGS-78455: fix(boxcutter): detect collision when duplicate package is installed after upgrade

[camilamacedo86]

Problem

After upgrading a ClusterExtension (e.g., v1.0.0 → v1.0.1), installing a
second ClusterExtension with the same package succeeds instead of being
blocked. Boxcutter reports ActionProgressed instead of ActionCollision
because the objects are already owned by the upgraded revision.

Solution

During collision detection, check ActionProgressed objects for controller
ownerRefs pointing to a ClusterExtensionRevision from a different
ClusterExtension. Treat these as collisions.

Before

Two ClusterExtensions referencing the same package both reach Installed: True
after an upgrade on the first one.

After

The second ClusterExtension is blocked with Progressing: True / Reason: Retrying
and a message containing revision object collisions and Conflicting Owner.

Motivated by: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-78455

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	296ffe3
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/69c4ff1d4b3abc0008fb86dd
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2578--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign grokspawn 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

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Fixes a Boxcutter collision-detection bypass that could allow a second ClusterExtension to install the same package after the first ClusterExtension upgraded and bumped managed-object revision numbers.

Changes:

• Treat ActionProgressed results as collisions when the reconciled object is controller-owned by a different ClusterExtensionRevision (foreign ownerRef).
• Add an E2E scenario covering “upgrade then duplicate install” and a new step to ensure both ClusterExtension resources are cleaned up.
• Add unit tests validating the new “foreign revision ownerRef” collision behavior.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	Adds foreign-ownerRef collision detection for ActionProgressed objects and tracks sibling CER names during reconcile.
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller_test.go	Adds unit coverage for foreign/sibling/non-CER controller ownerRef cases.
test/e2e/steps/steps.go	Adds a step to track the currently-applied ClusterExtension for cleanup when a scenario applies a second CE.
test/e2e/features/update.feature	Adds an E2E scenario asserting collisions are detected after an upgrade when installing a duplicate CE.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.75862% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 67.94%. Comparing base (b240fef) to head (296ffe3).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	82.75%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2578      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.81%   67.94%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         137      137              
  Lines        9588     9617      +29     
==========================================
+ Hits         6502     6534      +32     
+ Misses       2586     2584       -2     
+ Partials      500      499       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	38.12% <0.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
experimental-e2e	51.16% <82.75%> (+0.20%)	⬆️
unit	53.07% <82.75%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

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.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.