Replace error log levels with warnings in tedge agent

[Ruadhri17]

Proposed changes

This PR replaces error log levels with warnings and prevents exiting with error code in such cases.

Types of changes

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Improvement (general improvements like code refactoring that doesn't explicitly fix a bug or add any new functionality)
• Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Paste Link to the issue

• avoid using ERROR log level for non errors #2634

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
• I have signed the CLA (in all commits with git commit -s)
• I ran cargo fmt as mentioned in CODING_GUIDELINES
• I used cargo clippy as mentioned in CODING_GUIDELINES
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Further comments

[github-actions]

Robot Results

✅ Passed	❌ Failed	⏭️ Skipped	Total	Pass %	⏱️ Duration
385	0	3	385	100	50m59.184s

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (8589587) 75.8% compared to head (04f2fc6) 75.9%.
Report is 88 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Files	Coverage Δ
...tes/core/tedge_agent/src/software_manager/actor.rs	55.6% <0.0%> (ø)
...tes/core/tedge_agent/src/state_repository/state.rs	92.7% <0.0%> (ø)

... and 17 files with indirect coverage changes

[didier-wenzek]

@albinsuresh I wonder why the test "Update tedge version from base to current using Cumulocity" is not failing as it should since the version mismatch is not reported after an update.

[albinsuresh]

@albinsuresh I wonder why the test "Update tedge version from base to current using Cumulocity" is not failing as it should since the version mismatch is not reported after an update.

@didier-wenzek Is this comment still valid as Krzystoff seem to have reverted the problematic change?

[didier-wenzek]

@albinsuresh I wonder why the test "Update tedge version from base to current using Cumulocity" is not failing as it should since the version mismatch is not reported after an update.

@didier-wenzek Is this comment still valid as Krzystoff seem to have reverted the problematic change?

Somehow, yes. This test was supposed to cover the feature broken by the problematic change, but failed to raise the issue.

That said this is unrelated to this PR.

[didier-wenzek]

Approved

[albinsuresh]

@albinsuresh I wonder why the test "Update tedge version from base to current using Cumulocity" is not failing as it should since the version mismatch is not reported after an update.

@didier-wenzek Is this comment still valid as Krzystoff seem to have reverted the problematic change?

Somehow, yes. This test was supposed to cover the feature broken by the problematic change, but failed to raise the issue.

That said this is unrelated to this PR.

@didier-wenzek That's because his changes were not included in the 0.0.1 dummy version from which we upgrade to the current version in the test.

I understand how this can be confusing to anyone. Upgrading from the current version to a dummy higher version would have been better and clearer. We resorted to this mechanism due to the complexity of always building that dummy higher version as part of the test setup. We can re-evaluate that choice post 1.0.

[didier-wenzek]

@didier-wenzek That's because his changes were not included in the 0.0.1 dummy version from which we upgrade to the current version in the test.

It makes sense now.

I understand how this can be confusing to anyone. Upgrading from the current version to a dummy higher version would have been better and clearer. We resorted to this mechanism due to the complexity of always building that dummy higher version as part of the test setup.

To improve the test, one alternative could be to test both upgrade from dummy 0.0.1 to current and downgrade from current to dummy 0.0.1.

We can re-evaluate that choice post 1.0.

Sure.