Add --force to delete to allow users to force delete whatever can be deleted

[nikhiljindal]

Fixes #164

Adding a --force flag to kubemci delete to continue deletion even in case of errors.

Will add an e2e test as part of remove-clusters test (delete the mci after it has been removed from all clusters)

cc @G-Harmon

---

This change is 

[G-Harmon]

mostly looks good. just a few minor comments.

---

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 130 at r1 (raw file):

			return ingErr
		}
		fmt.Printf("%s. Continuing with force delete", ingErr)

Is it really a good idea to continue if UnmarshallAndApplyDefault fails? It just checks the namespaces and the annotations.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 144 at r1 (raw file):

			return clientsErr
		}
		fmt.Printf("%s. Continuing with force delete", clientsErr)

I think you need a newline at the end of Printf()s

---

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 231 at r1 (raw file):

// DeleteLoadBalancer deletes the GCP resources associated with the L7 GCP load balancer for the given ingress.
// TODO(nikhiljindal): Do not require the ingress yaml from users. Just the name should be enough. We can fetch ingress YAML from one of the clusters.
func (l *LoadBalancerSyncer) DeleteLoadBalancer(ing *v1beta1.Ingress, forceDelete bool) error {

nit: document new parameters.

---

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go, line 405 at r1 (raw file):

		t.Fatalf("unexpected error in test setup: %s", err)
	}
	if err := lbc.CreateLoadBalancer(ing, true /*forceUpdate*/, true /*validate*/, clusters); err != nil {

nit: set force=false while creating?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[nikhiljindal]

Review status: 1 of 3 files reviewed at latest revision, 4 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 130 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

Is it really a good idea to continue if UnmarshallAndApplyDefault fails? It just checks the namespaces and the annotations.

Right, removed. Thanks for pointing that out.

On second thought have also removed continuing from after GetClients. That also just instantiates clients based on kubeconfig.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 144 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

I think you need a newline at the end of Printf()s

Done

---

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer.go, line 231 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

nit: document new parameters.

Done

---

app/kubemci/pkg/gcp/loadbalancer/loadbalancersyncer_test.go, line 405 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

nit: set force=false while creating?

Right. Good catch

---

Comments from Reviewable

[nikhiljindal]

Thanks for the review @G-Harmon
Updated code as per comments

[G-Harmon]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r2, 2 of 3 files at r3.
Review status: 2 of 3 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 130 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Right, removed. Thanks for pointing that out.

On second thought have also removed continuing from after GetClients. That also just instantiates clients based on kubeconfig.

Did you actually change and push this? it looks the same...

---

Comments from Reviewable

[nikhiljindal]

Review status: 2 of 3 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 130 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, G-Harmon wrote…

Did you actually change and push this? it looks the same...

Yes I did push the change. If you go directly to https://beta.reviewable.io/reviews/googlecloudplatform/k8s-multicluster-ingress/168 then you will see the change. If you click on the link for this comment, it takes you to https://beta.reviewable.io/reviews/googlecloudplatform/k8s-multicluster-ingress/168#-L97omfR-zKgXKdxxyDh, which shows an older revision (the one with the comment).

Maybe you clicked on the link and hence are viewing an older revision?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[G-Harmon]

---

Reviewed 1 of 3 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

app/kubemci/cmd/delete.go, line 130 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nikhiljindal (Nikhil Jindal) wrote…

Yes I did push the change. If you go directly to https://beta.reviewable.io/reviews/googlecloudplatform/k8s-multicluster-ingress/168 then you will see the change. If you click on the link for this comment, it takes you to https://beta.reviewable.io/reviews/googlecloudplatform/k8s-multicluster-ingress/168#-L97omfR-zKgXKdxxyDh, which shows an older revision (the one with the comment).

Maybe you clicked on the link and hence are viewing an older revision?

I thought I had changed it to look at the latest rev, but I think I was actually comparing r1 to r2. oops.

---

Comments from Reviewable