CFE-1063: remove kubebuilder validation for placementGroupPartition

[chiragkyal]

As per #1897 (comment)
Kubebuilder validations won't work on this particular API, we will need to add them in webhook validation.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@chiragkyal: This pull request references CFE-1063 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

Hello @chiragkyal! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: chiragkyal
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign spadgett for approval. 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

[openshift-ci-robot]

@chiragkyal: This pull request references CFE-1063 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

As per #1897 (comment)
Kubebuilder validations won't work on this particular API, we will need to add them in webhook validation.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[JoelSpeed]

Even though the validations do not actually work here, I'd prefer we have them in the API to indicate the validations that we are making via the webhooks. This is a strange edge case but it's better to have that indication IMO, for consistency with other APIs
/close

[openshift-ci]

@JoelSpeed: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Even though the validations do not actually work here, I'd prefer we have them in the API to indicate the validations that we are making via the webhooks. This is a strange edge case but it's better to have that indication IMO, for consistency with other APIs
/close

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.