[quota management] Move AppWrapper quota request from label to element of AppWrapper object

[KPostOffice]

Currently AppWrappers must define quotas in their metadata.labels. We should think about moving these to be an element of the AppWrapper spec instead.

[metalcycling]

Any reason why this should be the case? It's an interesting idea, and I don't know why it was designed this way, but I wanna understand why you think it is better in the spec section

[KPostOffice]

Any reason why this should be the case? It's an interesting idea, and I don't know why it was designed this way, but I wanna understand why you think it is better in the spec section

My main issue with the labels as they are now is the fact that they are free-form with just tree-name: node-name, I think it can be unclear without a well named quota tree what the label is doing. Putting them in the spec would make this more clear with something like:

...
spec:
   quotas:
      - tree: foo
        node: bar
...

or

...
spec:
   quotas:
      foo: bar
...

I think this could also be done through labels as well with something like:

metadata:
   labels:
      quota.mcad.ibm.io/tree-name: "node"

[KPostOffice]

An edge case also just popped into my head that labels can't solve. If you want to specify multiple quotas within the same tree you wouldn't be able to with labels (it would require duplicate keys). I'm not sure how valid, or useful this case is though. My second example would also fail in this case.

[z103cb]

I think is @KPostOffice idea has a lot of merit, quota tree use should be an optional part of the app wrapper spec. Labels seem a little to loose.