feat: support fuse pods to launch in eager mode

[EvanCley]

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR does

support fuse pods to launch in both eager and lazy mode, default to lazy mode

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

no

Ⅲ. List the added test cases (unit test/integration test) if any, please explain if no tests are needed.

all included in the second commit

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

create dataset and any type of runtime with fuse.spec.launchMode, and then alluxio fuse pods will running on the nodes with nodeSelector labels

apiVersion: data.fluid.io/v1alpha1
kind: AlluxioRuntime
metadata:
  name: hbase
spec:
  replicas: 1
  tieredstore:
    levels:
      - mediumtype: MEM
        path: /dev/shm
        quota: 2Gi
        high: "0.95"
        low: "0.7"
  fuse:
    launchMode: Eager
    nodeSelector: 
         xxx: xx

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

1. vineyardRuntime spec has no fuse.nodeSelector field, which will be raised in a new issue
2. thinRuntimeProfiles fuse.nodeSelector will be covered by thinRuntime fuse.nodeSelector, which will be raised in a new issue
3. illegal fuse nodeSelector labels verify not handled in this pr
4. eager mode resource idle issue not handled in this pr

[fluid-e2e-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign zwwhdls for approval by writing /assign @zwwhdls in a comment. For more information see:The Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[fluid-e2e-bot]

Hi @EvanCley. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a fluid-cloudnative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[cheyang]

@EvanCley Thank you for the contribution. Please help fix the ut issue:

W0307 16:43:38.447583   74201 client_config.go:623] error creating inClusterConfig, falling back to default config: unable to load in-cluster configuration, KUBERNETES_SERVICE_HOST and KUBERNETES_SERVICE_PORT must be defined
--- FAIL: TestTransformFuseWithLaunchMode (0.00s)
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test fuse launch mode case 1 failure, got:map[],want:map[fuse_node:true]
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test fuse launch mode case 2 failure, got:map[],want:map[fluid.io/f-fluid-hbase:true fuse_node:true]
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test network mode case 3 failure, got:map[],want:map[fluid.io/f-fluid-hbase:true]
FAIL

[EvanCley]

@EvanCley Thank you for the contribution. Please help fix the ut issue:

W0307 16:43:38.447583   74201 client_config.go:623] error creating inClusterConfig, falling back to default config: unable to load in-cluster configuration, KUBERNETES_SERVICE_HOST and KUBERNETES_SERVICE_PORT must be defined
--- FAIL: TestTransformFuseWithLaunchMode (0.00s)
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test fuse launch mode case 1 failure, got:map[],want:map[fuse_node:true]
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test fuse launch mode case 2 failure, got:map[],want:map[fluid.io/f-fluid-hbase:true fuse_node:true]
    transform_fuse_test.go:148: check test network mode case 3 failure, got:map[],want:map[fluid.io/f-fluid-hbase:true]
FAIL

OK, the ut fix have done.

[cheyang]

Current implementation creates separate PreferredSchedulingTerm for each label, should we combine into single term?

term := corev1.NodeSelectorTerm{
    MatchExpressions: []corev1.NodeSelectorRequirement{
        {Key: "user-label1", Operator: In, Values: ["val1"]},
        {Key: "user-label2", Operator: In, Values: ["val2"]}
    }}
workers.Spec.Template.Spec.Affinity.NodeAffinity.PreferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution = 
    []corev1.PreferredSchedulingTerm{{Weight: 100, Preference: term}}

[EvanCley]

nice suggestion, I will revise it

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
11 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
3 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
48.9% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[cheyang]

/test fluid-e2e