Feature: Protect existing workflow files from accidental overwrites. by twoGiants · Pull Request #3407 · knative/func

twoGiants · 2026-01-30T10:26:33Z

Changes

🎁 Add workflow file existence check to prevent accidental overwrites
🎁 Add --force flag to explicitly allow overwriting existing workflow files
🎁 Add warning message when --force is used to overwrite existing workflows
🎁 Add distinct default workflow name for remote builds ("Remote Func Deploy") to avoid conflicts

/kind enhancement

Relates to #3256

Release Note

The `func config ci` command now protects existing workflow files from accidental overwrites. Use the `--force` flag to explicitly overwrite existing files.

Docs

cmd/ci/workflow.go

codecov · 2026-02-02T18:19:46Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 41.57303% with 52 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 54.56%. Comparing base (c12ec96) to head (ffadf68).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cmd/ci/config.go	14.28%	42 Missing ⚠️
cmd/ci/workflow.go	30.00%	5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
cmd/ci/writer.go	66.66%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3407      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.60%   54.56%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         179      179              
  Lines       20228    20282      +54     
==========================================
+ Hits        11045    11067      +22     
- Misses       8011     8044      +33     
+ Partials     1172     1171       -1

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`38.45% <0.00%> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
e2e go	`32.65% <0.00%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
e2e node	`28.57% <0.00%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
e2e python	`32.17% <0.00%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
e2e quarkus	`28.71% <0.00%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
e2e rust	`28.13% <0.00%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
e2e springboot	`26.59% <0.00%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
e2e typescript	`28.68% <0.00%> (-0.11%)`	⬇️
integration	`17.54% <0.00%> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
unit macos-14	`42.25% <44.00%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
unit macos-latest	`42.26% <44.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
unit ubuntu-24.04-arm	`42.59% <41.57%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
unit ubuntu-latest	`43.15% <44.00%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
unit windows-latest	`42.28% <44.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

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.

twoGiants · 2026-02-03T08:21:39Z

/cc @gauron99 @matejvasek @lkingland

The PR is ready for review. Please read the description about the logging.

gauron99 · 2026-02-03T08:28:42Z

/lgtm
/hold for potential other reviews or the ci jobs to complete 😁 . Unhold when you please

twoGiants · 2026-02-03T10:22:09Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 37.25490% with 64 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review. ✅ Project coverage is 54.52%. Comparing base (c12ec96) to head (8109c29). ⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing lines
...
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

The codecov tool is poorly configured or am I missing something? It's flagging the resolveBranch function as uncovered and much more but I have explicit tests for this paths TestNewConfigCICmd_BranchFlagResolution, TestNewConfigCICmd_BranchFlagResolutionError etc.

@gauron99

knative-prow · 2026-02-03T11:00:18Z

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

knative-prow · 2026-02-03T11:00:21Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: twoGiants
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from gauron99. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

lkingland · 2026-02-03T12:52:15Z

cmd/ci/config.go

+func resolveWorkflowName() string {
+	workflowName := viper.GetString(WorkflowNameFlag)
+	if workflowName != DefaultWorkflowName && workflowName != "" {
+		return workflowName
+	}
+
+	useRemoteBuild := viper.GetBool(UseRemoteBuildFlag)
+	if useRemoteBuild {
+		return DefaultRemoteBuildWorkflowName
+	}
+
+	return DefaultWorkflowName
+}


So if I understand this right, if a user explicitly sets workflow-name="Func Deploy" (the default value), the function treats it as if no custom name was provided because of the workflowName != DefaultWorkflowName check. This means with --remote --workflow-name="Func Deploy", we'd get "Remote Func Deploy" instead of their explicitly requested "Func Deploy"?

Something like this might help:

workflowNameChanged := cmd.Flags().Changed(WorkflowNameFlag)

Yes, good catch! I was also unsure about this one. Thank you. Will correct it 😸 👍

I am setting the default during resolution, the I don't need to pass down cobra.Command. Is that ok too?

After talking to David I got a small primer about how default values are set and it's probably best to evaluate the cmd.Flags().Changed(WorkflowNameFlag) and do what you proposed Luke 😺

The `func config ci` command previously overwrote existing workflow files silently, risking loss of user customizations. Now the command checks if a workflow file exists before writing and returns an error unless the `--force` flag is specified. When --force is used and a file exists, a warning is logged. Remote builds now use a distinct default workflow name ("Remote Func Deploy") to avoid conflicts, while explicit --workflow-name values are always preserved regardless of --remote flag. Issue knative#3256 Signed-off-by: Stanislav Jakuschevskij <sjakusch@redhat.com>

knative-prow bot added the kind/enhancement label Jan 30, 2026

knative-prow bot requested review from dsimansk and jrangelramos January 30, 2026 10:26

knative-prow-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 30, 2026

knative-prow bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 30, 2026

gauron99 reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

cmd/ci/workflow.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch 4 times, most recently from c7ebe59 to ab5ed8f Compare February 2, 2026 16:17

knative-prow-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 2, 2026

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from ab5ed8f to 8162643 Compare February 2, 2026 18:12

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from 8162643 to 8109c29 Compare February 3, 2026 08:20

knative-prow bot requested review from gauron99, lkingland and matejvasek February 3, 2026 08:21

knative-prow bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 3, 2026

knative-prow bot assigned gauron99 Feb 3, 2026

knative-prow bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 3, 2026

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from 8109c29 to 6fb5f5e Compare February 3, 2026 11:00

knative-prow bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 3, 2026

twoGiants marked this pull request as draft February 3, 2026 12:30

knative-prow bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 3, 2026

lkingland reviewed Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from 6fb5f5e to 09b4258 Compare February 5, 2026 10:08

twoGiants marked this pull request as ready for review February 5, 2026 10:09

knative-prow bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 5, 2026

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from 09b4258 to 332f403 Compare February 5, 2026 10:13

twoGiants requested a review from lkingland February 5, 2026 10:14

gauron99 removed request for dsimansk and jrangelramos February 5, 2026 10:28

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch 2 times, most recently from 9487908 to b055aaa Compare February 5, 2026 15:14

twoGiants force-pushed the issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation branch from b055aaa to ffadf68 Compare February 5, 2026 16:52

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Feature: Protect existing workflow files from accidental overwrites.#3407

Feature: Protect existing workflow files from accidental overwrites.#3407
twoGiants wants to merge 1 commit intoknative:mainfrom
twoGiants:issue-782-defensive-workflow-file-generation

twoGiants commented Jan 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

twoGiants commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

gauron99 commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

twoGiants commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

knative-prow bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

knative-prow bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

lkingland Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

twoGiants commented Jan 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

twoGiants commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

gauron99 commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

twoGiants commented Feb 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

knative-prow bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

knative-prow bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

lkingland Feb 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

twoGiants commented Jan 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

twoGiants commented Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

lkingland Feb 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

twoGiants Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading