Fix misleading message in "make ci" when imports formatted incorrectly

[johngmyers]

/kind bug

If the current commit contains a file with an import formatting error, such that make verify-goimports would fail, then a make ci will give the wrong error message, giving the user the wrong instructions for fixing the problem.

The added goimports will "fix up" the problem, causing the later verify-goimports to incorrectly pass. Then, verify-gomod will notice the dirty workspace and incorrectly tell the user to run go mod tidy.

This bug was introduced by #8023
The commit introducing the bug was reviewed and approved by @geojaz, so
/assign @geojaz

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @johngmyers. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[geojaz]

/ok-to-test
but it looks like travis is unhappy

[geojaz]

@johngmyers thank you for bailing me out :)

i went back to the drawing board on this. I'm wondering if targets make-ci and ci are both relevant. At this point, it looks like we could either eliminate ci, or have one alias the other (with updated comments for both). @joshbranham @mikesplain thoughts?

[johngmyers]

I don't see a make-ci target in master, just ci and travis-ci. @geojaz could you give a link to what you are referring to?

[geojaz]

Sorry, you're correct. I was comparing the targets ci and travis-ci in master. I wonder if there is still a need for both.

They seem to do essentially the same right now. I thought the intention of the travis target was to be like a ci-lite without bazel, but it seems to be the about the same.

I would argue that we should remove one or the other (probably by aliasing, so we don't break folks).

[johngmyers]

travis-ci omits the verifications that require bazel, as Travis does not currently have Bazel installed. I think it would be a good idea to figure out how to install Bazel in Travis, but that's a different issue (and currently beyond my Travis-fu).

[johngmyers]

Are there any issues with this PR as currently proposed or can it go in? I have a conflicting change I would like to propose as a new PR.

[geojaz]

/lgtm
/approve

sure. we can come back to this one. thanks @johngmyers

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: geojaz, johngmyers

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [geojaz]

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

[johngmyers]

/retest