hubble: Refactor peer service as a cell

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

This commit refactors the Hubble peer service to use a cell-based architecture, addressing the technical debt and improving modularity. The changes include:

1. Created a new peer service cell (pkg/hubble/peer/cell/cell.go):

   • Implemented a cell-based architecture for the peer service

2. Refactored hubble integration (pkg/hubble/cell/hubbleintegration.go):

   • Removed inline peer service creation
   • Removed duplicate getPort function (now handled in peer cell)
   • Renamed function to avoid collision with builtin function

3. Updated main hubble cell (pkg/hubble/cell/cell.go)

4. Added comprehensive tests (pkg/hubble/peer/cell/cell_test.go:

   • Unit tests for getPort function

Fixes: #40068

Release note

misc: Refactored Hubble peer service to use a Hive cell.

[maintainer-s-little-helper]

Commit 1b0c57d does not match "(?m)^Signed-off-by:".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[maintainer-s-little-helper]

Commit 1b0c57d does not match "(?m)^Signed-off-by:".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[maintainer-s-little-helper]

Commit 1b0c57d does not match "(?m)^Signed-off-by:".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[maintainer-s-little-helper]

Commit 12bb337 does not match "(?m)^Signed-off-by:".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

/test

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

Hi @kaworu , could you please help me with this issue?🙏

I've been consistently facing two test failures with the same root cause. The cilium status output shows:

    /¯¯\
 /¯¯\__/¯¯\    Cilium:             OK
 \__/¯¯\__/    Operator:           OK
 /¯¯\__/¯¯\    Envoy DaemonSet:    disabled (using embedded mode)
 \__/¯¯\__/    Hubble Relay:       1 errors
    \__/       ClusterMesh:        disabled

DaemonSet              cilium                   Desired: 2, Ready: 2/2, Available: 2/2
Deployment             cilium-operator          Desired: 1, Ready: 1/1, Available: 1/1
Deployment             hubble-relay             Desired: 1, Unavailable: 1/1
Containers:            cilium                   Running: 2
                       cilium-operator          Running: 1
                       clustermesh-apiserver    
                       hubble-relay             Running: 1
Cluster Pods:          4/4 managed by Cilium
Helm chart version:    1.19.0-dev
Image versions         cilium             quay.io/cilium/cilium-ci:b46e740d70578ef40b9f1839078d618223232a28: 2
                       cilium-operator    quay.io/cilium/operator-generic-ci:b46e740d70578ef40b9f1839078d618223232a28: 1
                       hubble-relay       quay.io/cilium/hubble-relay-ci:b46e740d70578ef40b9f1839078d618223232a28: 1
Errors:                hubble-relay       hubble-relay    1 pods of Deployment hubble-relay are not ready

Error: Unable to determine status:  timeout while waiting for status to become successful: context deadline exceeded

I don't believe this is caused by my changes, so I started investigating further. I noticed a potential configuration mismatch:

In values.yaml, the listenPort is set to 4245, but in the hubble-relay deployment template, the port is configured as 4222.

Could this port mismatch be causing the timeout while waiting for status to become successful error? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! 😊

[devodev]

Overall this LGTM, thank you for the initiative and great work @Liang-gong-ci-fang !

I left some suggestions, otherwise I appreciate you taking the time to add tests for getPort and for providing the HubbleConfig from the Hubble cell.

Also could you rebase and remove the merge commit?

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

@devodev I'm so grateful for your incredibly valuable advice. I'll definitely take some time to sincerely take it all in.

[devodev]

This looks great, thank you!
Left some nits but we could merge as-is :)

[devodev]

I think we can rebase the 3 commits into one for this change before merging, but thanks for splitting changes, it made it easy to review :)

[devodev]

/test

[kaworu]

Hi @Liang-gong-ci-fang and thank you for the PR!

Overall LGTM, only some nitpicking / cosmetic comments.

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

@kaworu Thanks for the review and the helpful suggestions!

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

/test

[kaworu]

Thanks for the update @Liang-gong-ci-fang, please tidy up the comment message (you can do it with git commit --amend).

[kaworu]

@Liang-gong-ci-fang sorry I merged #41679 without foreseeing that it would create a conflict in this PR. Can you please rebase the patch and resolve the conflict? Thank you.

[Liang-gong-ci-fang]

Hi @kaworu , Thank you for the heads up! I have successfully rebased my branch and resolved the conflicts with #41679. The PR should now be ready for review again.

[kaworu]

Thanks for the quick update @Liang-gong-ci-fang 🚀

[devodev]

/test

[kaworu]

/test