refactor(cfg): remove --precondition-errors flag

[vipnydav]

Description

This PR removes the --precondition-errors flag and its corresponding configuration settings from GCSFuse. The behavior of returning an ESTALE error when an object is modified or deleted by a concurrent process is now the mandatory default.

Link to the issue

b/499886011

Testing details

1. Manual - NA
2. Unit tests - Automated.
3. Integration tests - Automated

Any backward incompatible change?

Yes. The --precondition-errors flag has been removed. Users who were explicitly setting this flag to false (disabling the stale file handle error) will get an error.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request standardizes the behavior of GCSFuse when encountering concurrent modifications to objects. By removing the optional --precondition-errors flag, the system now consistently returns an ESTALE error in these scenarios, ensuring safer data handling and preventing potential data corruption. This change simplifies the configuration surface and enforces a more robust default state for all users.

Highlights

• Removal of --precondition-errors flag: The --precondition-errors flag and its associated configuration have been removed from GCSFuse.
• Mandatory stale file handle error: Returning an ESTALE error when an object is modified or deleted by a concurrent process is now the mandatory default behavior.
• Codebase cleanup: Removed the flag from configuration files, CLI argument parsing, and updated internal error mapping logic to reflect the new mandatory behavior.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request removes the precondition-errors configuration option and flag, making the return of ESTALE errors for concurrent object modifications the default behavior. The changes span configuration files, flag parsing, error mapping logic, and associated tests. Two issues were identified: an unreachable return statement in internal/cache/file/downloader/job_test.go and a remaining reference to the removed precondition_errors flag in the integration test script which would cause failures.

[github-actions]

Hi @meet2mky, @Tulsishah, @ashmeenkaur, your feedback is needed to move this pull request forward. This automated reminder was triggered because there has been no activity for over 24 hours. Please provide your input when you have a moment. Thank you!

[github-actions]

Hi @meet2mky, @Tulsishah, your feedback is needed to move this pull request forward. This automated reminder was triggered because there has been no activity for over 24 hours. Please provide your input when you have a moment. Thank you!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 83.64%. Comparing base (8a9f498) to head (47c9fa1).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4587   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.64%   83.64%           
=======================================
  Files         164      164           
  Lines       20272    20269    -3     
=======================================
- Hits        16956    16955    -1     
+ Misses       2676     2675    -1     
+ Partials      640      639    -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	83.64% <100.00%> (+<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.

[kislaykishore]

Could you get a clean run of the linux-tests?