do not delete disabled resources

[gazarenkov]

Description

It excludes potential deleting the resources created when certain feature is disabled (such as local db, route, monitor)

Which issue(s) does this PR fix or relate to

https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/RHDHBUGS-2781

PR acceptance criteria

• Tests
• Documentation

How to test changes / Special notes to the reviewer

For example:

• Create empty CR (spec.database.enableLocalDb=true by default)
• Check DB StatefulSet created
• Modify CR with spec.database.enableLocalDb=false and apply
• Check DB StatefulSet is still there

[github-actions]

PR images are available:

1. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ef8b9f
2. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-bundle:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ef8b9f
3. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-catalog:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ef8b9f

[github-actions]

PR images are available:

1. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator:0.10.0-pr-2733-d3dd75e
2. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-bundle:0.10.0-pr-2733-d3dd75e
3. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-catalog:0.10.0-pr-2733-d3dd75e

[rm3l]

Hmm.., it might be confusing to see that some resources are still there when the corresponding feature is purposely toggled from enabled to disabled. For example, I first create a Backstage CR on OCP (so with a Route created by default), then I set spec.application.route.enabled: false in the CR, and now the Route object is still present.
Maybe the Operator could add some uniquely identifiable labels on the resources it creates and manages, and only try to delete those to avoid conflict with user-created resources?
Or (thinking out loud) maybe just refuse to reconcile if there are conflicting resources that it does not manage, and thus avoid touching those?

[gazarenkov]

Hmm.., it might be confusing to see that some resources are still there when the corresponding feature is purposely toggled from enabled to disabled. For example, I first create a Backstage CR on OCP (so with a Route created by default), then I set spec.application.route.enabled: false in the CR, and now the Route object is still present. Maybe the Operator could add some uniquely identifiable labels on the resources it creates and manages, and only try to delete those to avoid conflict with user-created resources? Or (thinking out loud) maybe just refuse to reconcile if there are conflicting resources that it does not manage, and thus avoid touching those?

Let's just document it for clarity and keep simple until we really need to make it complex.
Those resources, with specific names, are "special", operator manages it if certain feature is enabled and ignores otherwise.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

PR images are available:

1. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ce8528
2. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-bundle:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ce8528
3. https://quay.io/rhdh-community/operator-catalog:0.10.0-pr-2733-3ce8528