[3.5] fix(defrag): close temp file in case of error

[ghouscht]

See #18841 for details. Backport of #18851 to 3.5

Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @ghouscht. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io 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-sigs/prow repository.

[ghouscht]

/assign @ahrtr

Should I prepare a changelog entry as well?

[ahrtr]

/ok-to-test

[ahrtr]

PLease also update the changelog for both. 3.5 and 3.4, thx

[mmorel-35]

This will make go vet fail and is already causing trouble on main https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/etcd-io_etcd/18821/pull-etcd-verify/1854634839446130688#1:build-log.txt%3A838

[ghouscht]

This will make go vet fail and is already causing trouble on main https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/etcd-io_etcd/18821/pull-etcd-verify/1854634839446130688#1:build-log.txt%3A838

Thank you for raising this. Strange that it wasn't noticed by the checks that were run against the PR where this was added to main. I submitted #18857 to fix this in main and adapted this and the 3.4 backport PRs.

[ahrtr]

Strange that it wasn't noticed by the checks that were run against the PR where this was added to main.

Right. It's the problem. Any idea why it wasn't detected on the PR? One possible reason was that you did not rebase your PR; in other words, your PR was based on the commit before the lint was enabled.

[ghouscht]

Strange that it wasn't noticed by the checks that were run against the PR where this was added to main.

Right. It's the problem. Any idea why it wasn't detected on the PR? One possible reason was that you did not rebase your PR; in other words, your PR was based on the commit before the lint was enabled.

Hmm I try to keep my for up-to-date so I don't think this was the issue. However the PR (#18851) had no ok-to-test label so that most likely explains this.

[ahrtr]

the PR (#18851) had no ok-to-test label so that most likely explains this.

Right.

[ivanvc]

Right. It's the problem. Any idea why it wasn't detected on the PR? One possible reason was that you did not rebase your PR; in other words, your PR was based on the commit before the lint was enabled.

This is also a reminder that we need to enable prow postsubmit jobs. I'll speak with James next week to plan this.

[ivanvc]

This backport LGTM. Thanks, Thomas.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, ghouscht, ivanvc

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 [ahrtr]

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