execute InterpretHealth even if statusRaw is nil

[chaosi-zju]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

continue to execute InterpretHealth even if statusRaw is nil, otherwise, the graceful eviction controller could not parse the service's health status, the EvictionTask will be kept for 10min, details described in #4430

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #4430

Special notes for your reviewer:

Test Report：

status:
  aggregatedStatus:
  - applied: true
    clusterName: member1
    health: Healthy
  - applied: true
    clusterName: member2
    health: Healthy
  - applied: true
    clusterName: member3
    health: Healthy
  conditions:
  - lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-20T07:52:02Z"
    message: Binding has been scheduled successfully.
    reason: Success
    status: "True"
    type: Scheduled
  - lastTransitionTime: "2023-12-20T07:52:05Z"
    message: All works have been successfully applied
    reason: FullyAppliedSuccess
    status: "True"
    type: FullyApplied

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

`karmada-controller-manager`: Fixed the issue that grace eviction is being blocked due to skipping InterpretHealth for resources without status.

[chaosi-zju]

CC @XiShanYongYe-Chang @jwcesign

[jwcesign]

/lgtm

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Thanks~
/lgtm
/cc @RainbowMango

[RainbowMango]

After revisiting the implementation of InterpretHealth:

karmada/pkg/resourceinterpreter/default/native/default.go

Lines 154 to 163 in 88bed31

	// InterpretHealth returns the health state of the object.
	func (e *DefaultInterpreter) InterpretHealth(object *unstructured.Unstructured) (bool, error) {
	klog.V(4).Infof("Get health status of object: %v %s/%s with build-in interpreter.", object.GroupVersionKind(), object.GetNamespace(), object.GetName())
	handler, exist := e.healthHandlers[object.GroupVersionKind()]
	if exist {
	return handler(object)
	}
	return false, fmt.Errorf("default %s interpreter for %q not found", configv1alpha1.InterpreterOperationInterpretHealth, object.GroupVersionKind())
	}

We only provided default implementations for a few workload resource types, which is reasonable as most of configuration resource types like Secret, ConfigMap, RBAC, and so on might not need to be evaluated.

So, let's assume that resources that do not implement the InterpretHealth interface are considered healthy by default.
In addition, the InterpretHealth was designed for fail-over purposes, we shouldn't require all resource types to implement the interface. What do you think? @XiShanYongYe-Chang @chaunceyjiang Does that make sense to you?

[chaunceyjiang]

So, let's assume that resources that do not implement the InterpretHealth interface are considered healthy by default.
In addition, the InterpretHealth was designed for fail-over purposes, we shouldn't require all resource types to implement the interface

+1

[chaosi-zju]

update: change implemetion to continue to execute InterpretHealth even if statusRaw is nil

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

update: change implemetion to continue to execute InterpretHealth even if statusRaw is nil

/lgtm

Please help update the title.

[chaosi-zju]

update: re-tested okay.

[jwcesign]

I think we need release-notes

[chaosi-zju]

I think we need release-notes

done

[RainbowMango]

update: change implemetion to continue to execute InterpretHealth even if statusRaw is nil

That makes sense to me. No matter whether the status is empty or not, just let InterpretHealth to evaluate the healthy status.

I understand this PR focuses on fixing the issue tracked by #4430, and the improvement discussed above(#4453 (comment)) should be tracked by another issue/PR.

[RainbowMango]

/lgtm
/approve

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/controllers/OWNERS [RainbowMango]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment