fix(cmd): ensure rm and rmi exit with errors on failure #1735
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @kairosci, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a critical issue where the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request addresses an important issue where toolbox rm and toolbox rmi would not return a non-zero exit code on failure, which is problematic for scripting. The changes introduce a flag, attemptFailed, to track failures within the loops for removing containers and images, and then return a general error if any failure occurred. This correctly solves the problem for removing items by name.
However, the same logic has not been applied when the --all flag is used. In both rm and rmi commands, if removing an item fails within the --all loop, an error is printed, but the command will still exit with a success code (0). This is inconsistent with the goal of this pull request. To make the behavior consistent, I recommend applying the same attemptFailed logic to the blocks handling the --all flag for both commands.
| containerObj, err := podman.InspectContainer(container) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| attemptFailed = true | ||
| fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Error: failed to inspect container %s\n", container) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error from podman.InspectContainer is discarded here. Including it in the output would provide more context about why the inspection failed, which is useful for debugging. The err variable likely contains detailed information from the underlying podman command.
| fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Error: failed to inspect container %s\n", container) | |
| fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Error: failed to inspect container %s: %v\n", container, err) |
Signed-off-by: Alessio Attilio <attilio.alessio@protonmail.com>
kairosci
force-pushed
the
fix/rm-rmi-exit-status
branch
from
bbfdc4a to
b4ea175
Compare
1 participant
This PR ensures that
toolbox rmandtoolbox rmiexit with a non-zero status code if any error occurs during the removal process.Previously, these commands would print an error message but continue execution and exit with 0, which could be misleading for scripts and automation.