This should be a more flexible option since certificates aren't likely
to be part of the actual workspace and may be environment-dependent. It
also mirrors the kube_certificate, which is nice.
This fixes the run package's leaky abstraction; other packages no longer
need to know or care that run.Config even exists.
Note that since the various Steps now depend on having a non-nil pointer
to a run.Config, it's unsafe (or at least risky) to initialize them
directly. They should be created with their NewSTEPNAME functions. All
their fields are now private, to reflect this.
This is the first step toward removing run.Config entirely. InitKube was
the only Step that even used cfg in its Execute function; the rest just
discarded it.
This seems to be be a more natural separation of concerns--the knowledge
of which config fields map to which parts of a Step belong to the Step,
not to the Plan.
These comments were a reasonable attempt at ensuring the documentation
matched reality, but the checkbox in the pull request template is much
more likely to produce results.
This change revealed more about how the system needs to work, so there
are some supporting changes:
* helm.upgrade and helm.help are now vars rather than raw functions.
This allows unit tests to target the "which step should we run"
logic directly by comparing function pointers, rather than having to
configure/prepare a fully-valid Plan and then infer the logic’s
correctness based on the Plan’s state.
* configuration that's specific to kubeconfig initialization is now part
of the InitKube struct rather than run.Config, since other steps
shouldn’t need access to those settings (particularly the secrets).
* Step.Execute now receives a run.Config so it can log debug output.
I'm vacillating about the choice to have separate Config structs in the
`helm` and `run` packages. I can't tell whether it's "good separation of
concerns" or "cumbersome and over-engineered." It seems appropriate at
the moment, though.
