fix zones match

[whitewindmills]

What type of PR is this? /kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it: For clusters across multiple AZs, should we relax the restrictions so that as long as there is a matching zone attribute, the cluster can be used as a scheduling candidate cluster? Otherwise, the scheduling results cannot be calculated in many scenarios.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes: Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from whitewindmills. 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:

• pkg/util/OWNERS

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

[whitewindmills]

/cc @RainbowMango

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Hi @whitewindmills, the UT has failed.

[whitewindmills]

Hi @whitewindmills, the UT has failed.

thanks, fixed.

[codecov-commenter]

:warning: Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 49.05%. Comparing base (721b472) to head (a33653d). Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/util/selector.go	66.66%	1 Missing :warning:

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6431      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   49.05%   49.05%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         687      687              
  Lines       56058    56061       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        27500    27499       -1     
- Misses      26777    26780       +3     
- Partials     1781     1782       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	49.05% <66.66%> (-0.01%)	:arrow_down:

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

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[whitewindmills]

seems to be unrelated test cases. /retest

[RainbowMango]

https://github.com/karmada-io/karmada/blob/adef1e59748e1e1d31cb75fffe406b5dd69a66d7/pkg/util/selector.go#L210

This PR looks good to me. But this comment shows the previous behavior was in line with expectations and was not a bug.

Can you remind me why it was designed this way before?

[whitewindmills]

But this comment shows the previous behavior was in line with expectations and was not a bug.

Maybe I had not considered the actual usage scenario at that time.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

This PR is more accurately a behavioral adjustment rather than a bug fix, so could we consider changing the label? Additionally, do you need to update the comment content for the matchZones function?