Add check for owner references in backup sync, removing if missing

[deefdragon]

Please add a summary of your change

Loops through the list of Ownership References in a backup when synchronizing. For each ownership reference, it checks for the referenced schedule, and if it exists, keeps it, but if it does not exist, removes it, and logs as such.

This is only a draft as I am unsure if this is the best approach/inline with the desired usage of OwnershipReferences in velero. If a seperate approach is desired, I can update as requested.

Does your change fix a particular issue?

Fixes #7031

Please indicate you've done the following:

• Accepted the DCO. Commits without the DCO will delay acceptance.
• Created a changelog file or added /kind changelog-not-required as a comment on this pull request.
• Updated the corresponding documentation in site/content/docs/main.

Will update docs as requested where relevant, but I don't think they are relevant anywhere in this particular case?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (23921e5) 61.00% compared to head (292aa34) 61.16%.
Report is 73 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/controller/backup_sync_controller.go	82.75%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7032      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   61.00%   61.16%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         252      258       +6     
  Lines       26898    27327     +429     
==========================================
+ Hits        16409    16714     +305     
- Misses       9326     9430     +104     
- Partials     1163     1183      +20     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[deefdragon]

request for feedback on a specific section.

[deefdragon]

Updated the code to check a bit better, and account for ownership references.

I've tried writing some tests, but I'm having difficulty getting the tests to run, and I'm really not understanding how the existing testing works. I cant figure out how Test Backup Sync Reconciler basic function is validating that the end result is as expected.

[ywk253100]

Updated the code to check a bit better, and account for ownership references.

I've tried writing some tests, but I'm having difficulty getting the tests to run, and I'm really not understanding how the existing testing works. I cant figure out how Test Backup Sync Reconciler basic function is validating that the end result is as expected.

How about splitting the newly added logic into a separate function so that you can add unit tests for the function easily?

[ywk253100]

@deefdragon Could you sign off the commit to pass the DCO checking?

[deefdragon]

sorry. work has kept me super busy the last week. I will get the tests in and signed off hopefully Saturday.

[ywk253100]

@deefdragon Do you have time to handle the PR now? As we are close to the FC date, if you don't have enough time, I'll take it over

[deefdragon]

I'll try to get to it tonight and clean it up/test it/sign it, but if I don't finish it tonight, feel free to take over.

(I originally ran into this because I'm migrating my cluster, which is taking most of my attention. sorry for the delays.)

[deefdragon]

Should be signed, split out, and tested. I arguably went overboard on the tests, but I'd rather overdo it than miss something.