feat(bitmap): Move bitmap (port allocation tracking) to common libs. …

[james-munson]

… Extend to avoid immediate reuse of freed.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Part 1 of longhorn/longhorn#8598.
Part 2 would be to remove the duplicated bitmap code from other repos and point them at this one.

What this PR does / why we need it:

Special notes for your reviewer:

For a handy diff of the new code against the old instance-manager version, see https://github.com/longhorn/longhorn-instance-manager/pull/625/files#diff-c65bce8b6b1aef67ab3a2a6dcd87b0834084a68d06b9f1ce1f127ab8612df22a

Additional documentation or context

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.84%. Comparing base (b6ddc3e) to head (19ae6af).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #60      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.93%   79.84%   +0.91%     
==========================================
  Files          32       33       +1     
  Lines        1519     1583      +64     
==========================================
+ Hits         1199     1264      +65     
+ Misses        204      203       -1     
  Partials      116      116              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	79.84% <100.00%> (+0.91%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[ejweber]

LGTM in principle.

• One question that I think is only for my own understanding.
• One nit for our standard error formatting conventions.

It looks like we have pretty strong checking for code coverage in this library compared to some of our other repos! The Codecov warnings are pretty pedantic here, but they seem like they can easily be covered by a few additional test cases with "bad" inputs. WDYT about handling them before merging?

[james-munson]

@ejweber, thanks for the review. The gaps in coverage were there when I got there, but as you say, it is the work of a moment to cure that as well, so why not?

[ejweber]

LGTM.

[ejweber]

The merge is blocked here for a similar reason to longhorn/longhorn-ui#679 (comment). It looks like this repo is also configured to reguire GPG (or other) signing? I don't have access to the settings to check the details. Is this expected @derekbit / @innobead?

(BTW it is fine to wait for @PhanLe1010 or @shuo-wu to take a look as well before we merge. Eventually though, we will need to unblock this.)

[derekbit]

The merge is blocked here for a similar reason to longhorn/longhorn-ui#679 (comment). It looks like this repo is also configured to reguire GPG (or other) signing? I don't have access to the settings to check the details. Is this expected @derekbit / @innobead?

(BTW it is fine to wait for @PhanLe1010 or @shuo-wu to take a look as well before we merge. Eventually though, we will need to unblock this.)

It looks like this repo is also configured to reguire GPG (or other) signing?

No, we don't need it and configure it.

Unfortunately, I'm encountering the same issue. Figuring out the root cause...

cc @innobead

[shuo-wu]

In general LGTM