Make sure dry runs sees all the resources a normal run would do

[john7doe]

This PR addresses that by implementing a more generic resource handling approach, ensuring that dry runs can access all resource types and objects as expected

I discovered an issue with dry-runs only seeing a subset of resources during execution when I was working on adding an option to filter pods on pod disruption budgets (WIP, will PR later).

The root case was the order of the calls to create listers and the call to WaitForCacheSync.

I think this bug is the likely reason why this special casing was added. With the new code thats no longer needed (if reviews agree with that, then I can remove it as part of this PR).

The code also simplifies the number of changes need when a new type of resource is needed by a plugin.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @john7doe. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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-sigs/prow repository.

[ingvagabund]

/ok-to-test

[ingvagabund]

This looks great. I like how cleaner the solution is.
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ingvagabund

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:

• OWNERS [ingvagabund]

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

[ingvagabund]

I think this bug is the likely reason why this special casing was added. With the new code thats no longer needed (if reviews agree with that, then I can remove it as part of this PR).

Looks like that code got introduced 7 years ago through 7d07981: The cached client got implemented few years back: #677.

[john7doe]

/retest

[ingvagabund]

/retest-required

[ingvagabund]

/retest-required

[ingvagabund]

/label tide/merge-method-squash

[ingvagabund]

/lgtm