Skip to content

Conversation

@ipmb
Copy link
Member

@ipmb ipmb commented Nov 14, 2025

No description provided.

Claude Code added 2 commits November 14, 2025 17:45
When the destroy command retried a failed deletion and succeeded,
it would still exit with a non-zero code because the recursive call
to destroy() was missing a return statement.

This caused the code to fall through to the error return even after
a successful retry, making CI tests fail despite successful deletion.

Changes:
- Added return statement to destroy() recursive call on line 70
- Now properly returns success when retry succeeds
- Fixes false failures in functional tests
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes a bug in the destroy command's retry logic where the exit code from a successful retry was not being properly returned, causing the command to report failure even when the retry succeeded. With this fix, the manual retry logic in CI workflows can be removed.

  • Fixed missing return statement in destroy retry logic to properly propagate exit codes
  • Removed redundant manual retry logic from GitHub Actions workflows
  • Simplified workflow commands for cluster destruction

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
cmd/destroy.go Added return statement to properly propagate the exit code from recursive destroy retry call
.github/workflows/functional_tests.yml Removed manual retry logic for cluster destruction now that exit codes are properly handled in code
.github/workflows/databases.yml Removed manual retry logic for cluster destruction now that exit codes are properly handled in code

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@ipmb ipmb merged commit 3b0c36b into main Nov 14, 2025
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants