fix: compare labels and annotations in EnsureSecretExist

[intojhanurag]

Previously, EnsureSecretExist only compared Secret.Data when deciding
whether to create or update a Kubernetes Secret. This caused updates
to be skipped if only labels or annotations changed, which could
break Knative function deployments relying on metadata.

Changes:

• Compares Labels and Annotations using DeepEqual
• Normalizes nil maps to empty maps to avoid spurious updates
• Keeps Data comparison using DeepDerivative (existing behavior)

[knative-prow]

Hi @intojhanurag. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com 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.

Details

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 27 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 51.75%. Comparing base (b039190) to head (be20318).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/k8s/secrets.go	0.00%	27 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3191      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   51.81%   51.75%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         162      162              
  Lines       19131    19156      +25     
==========================================
+ Hits         9912     9915       +3     
- Misses       8241     8264      +23     
+ Partials      978      977       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	17.88% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unit macos-14	44.31% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
unit macos-latest	44.31% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
unit ubuntu-24.04-arm	44.51% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
unit ubuntu-latest	45.24% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
unit windows-latest	44.34% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[intojhanurag]

Hey @gauron99 , Please can you review this PR , If you have a moment. I got confuse that tests are failing in general or it is my issue ? becaues in that period I opened so many PRs and tests are failing in all PRs.

[lkingland]

Thanks for the PR @intojhanurag

If this rerun of tests doesn't work, you can rebase main to get improved E2E tests.

/retest

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: intojhanurag, lkingland

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [lkingland]

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

[intojhanurag]

Hey @gauron99 , pls this one also. last one :)

[gauron99]

/lgtm