CKS/CSI: fix PVC deletion script to avoid '(standard input)' and use kubectl -o name/jsonpath

[Pearl1594]

Description

This PR fixes PVC deletion script to avoid "(standard input)" and use kubectl -o name/jsonpath

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 17.56%. Comparing base (3d6cafe) to head (fdd4ce4).
⚠️ Report is 421 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #11968   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     17.56%   17.56%           
- Complexity    15543    15545    +2     
=========================================
  Files          5909     5909           
  Lines        529056   529056           
  Branches      64617    64617           
=========================================
+ Hits          92941    92948    +7     
+ Misses       425661   425654    -7     
  Partials      10454    10454           

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.58% <ø> (ø)
unittests	18.63% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Pearl1594]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@Pearl1594 a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 15622

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open for 120 days with no activity. It may be removed by administrators of this project at any time. Remove the stale label or comment to request for removal of it to prevent this.

[DaanHoogland]

@Pearl1594 , anything to do here?

[weizhouapache]

code lgtm

have not tested it

[Pearl1594]

@Pearl1594 , anything to do here?

This was more of a cleanup related PR - nothing more to do @DaanHoogland - ready for review / merge..

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18411

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-16451)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 49543 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr11968-t16451-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 151 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm, but I see more similarities than differences in the four changed blocks. Will it make sense to modularize a bit?

[DaanHoogland]

also, this code is touched by the kubernetes integration tests, is it? (i.e. smoke tests suffice?)