fix: handle repo creation when secret does not have proper label

[leoluz]

Signed-off-by: Leonardo Luz Almeida leonardo_almeida@intuit.com

Note on DCO:

If the DCO action in the integration test fails, one or more of your commits are not signed off. Please click on the Details link next to the DCO action for instructions on how to resolve this.

Checklist:

• Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
• The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
• I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
• I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
• Does this PR require documentation updates?
• I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
• Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
• I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
• I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
• My build is green (troubleshooting builds).

[jannfis]

This is just a nitpick, but for the compiler (and/or linter) to catch issues with the format string, I think it would be wiser to either have msg := fmt.Sprintf(...) and use status.Error(), or just get rid of the intermediate variable msg and use status.Errorf() with the format string literal.

[leoluz]

The reason why I did that was to avoid having a too long line and avoid scrolling. Too bad the linter is not smart enough to verify the code with variables as well. I picked your first suggestion as it has better code readability. 👍🏻

[jannfis]

Thanks @leoluz! LGTM with three minor things (one of them in a separate comment above):

• Linter is unhappy about import order, please fix

• While I appreciate embedding the test data (I suppose they don't end up in the binaries we distribute, and only get embedded in the binaries used for testing?), I think this would be a fine separate PR and shouldn't come with this one.

[leoluz]

@jannfis

Linter is unhappy about import order, please fix

Issue with goimports fixed. Didn't know that we have to run it with -local github.com/argoproj/argo-cd flag. Tks!

While I appreciate embedding the test data (I suppose they don't end up in the binaries we distribute, and only get embedded in the binaries used for testing?), I think this would be a fine separate PR and shouldn't come with this one.

A go binary only includes code reachable from its main() entry point. For test binaries main() is the test runner. So unless someone imports the testdata package in a code that is reachable from one of the command's main() this won't be added to the binaries that we distribute. The reason why I added this code in this PR is because it was impacting delve when I was trying to debug the tests. The previous code was reading test data with relative path expecting the CWD to be defined where the test file is located. The current code doesn't have this limitation and is refactoring friendly.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7617 (0064d8a) into master (6036e9b) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 77.77%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7617      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.39%   41.44%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         161      161              
  Lines       21686    21787     +101     
==========================================
+ Hits         8978     9030      +52     
- Misses      11444    11487      +43     
- Partials     1264     1270       +6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
util/db/repository_secrets.go	69.68% <77.77%> (+1.61%)	⬆️
pkg/apis/application/v1alpha1/types.go	54.99% <0.00%> (-2.29%)	⬇️
cmd/argocd/commands/admin/app.go	30.50% <0.00%> (-0.40%)	⬇️
util/settings/settings.go	46.83% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
controller/appcontroller.go	53.03% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
controller/state.go	68.02% <0.00%> (ø)
cmd/argocd/commands/app.go	0.53% <0.00%> (ø)
cmd/argocd/commands/projectwindows.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
util/rbac/rbac.go	77.04% <0.00%> (+0.64%)	⬆️
cmd/util/app.go	37.95% <0.00%> (+0.76%)	⬆️
... and 3 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6036e9b...0064d8a. Read the comment docs.

[leoluz]

@jannfis PR updated.

Moved the GPG test data refactoring to #7625

Please review

[alexmt]

LGTM