Conformance tests should test the propagation of labels between Service -> Configuration -> Revision

[nader-ziada]

Expected Behavior

Conformance tests should test the propagation of labels between Service -> Configuration -> Revision.

for example the Revision object has the following labels:

• Configuration name
• Service name

and the KPA and Deployment objects have the following labels:

• Revision name

and the Route object has the following labels:

• Service name

These are just a few examples.

Actual Behavior

Conformance tests does not test for the labels on the different objects.

Steps to Reproduce the Problem

1. check the conformance test

[mattmoor]

The Configuration inlines a RevisionTemplateSpec, which lets you specify labels for the Revision at the Service and Configuration levels. I think you are suggesting that it should augment these with its own.

I think one problem we've seen with this is a race that occurs due to the Route labeling referenced Configurations and the Configuration stamping our a Revision. Sometimes the Revision gets the label and sometimes it does not.

[nader-ziada]

I wanted to add a conformance test to check all these labels as suggested by @evankanderson in the Environment variables issue since the env vars values are updated from the labels

[evankanderson]

It seems like we are copying labels from one level to another (for example, so that the Pods running user code know what Revision or Service they are part of).

This seems like useful functionality which users will depend on, so we should add it to our conformance testing. I noticed this while reviewing #1966, which effectively changes the set of Pod labels but doesn't result in a direct spec change.

If I had it to do over again, I think I might have preferred copying metadata from one level to the next where possible rather than embedding an extra copy, but there are valid use cases for wanting each.

[nader-ziada]

/assign @pivotal-nader-ziada