Make code checking for secret --replace cleaner

[rhatdan]

Add some tests to make sure secrets do not regress.

[packit-as-a-service]

Ephemeral COPR build failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

[Luap99]

The commit could need some explanation would the actual logic change in the code is because it was really not obvious to me.

[Luap99]

Unless I am doing something wrong this test passes with and without your changes so it does not check what you think it does I guess

[rhatdan]

These are good things to check, but I agree, I don't see a fix in my code.

[rhatdan]

This is fixing:

$ echo hi | /bin/podman secret create --replace foobar -
Error: deleting secret : : no secret data with ID
$ echo hi | ./bin/podman secret create --replace foobar -
WARN[0000] Failed to decode the keys ["storage.options.thinpool"] from "/usr/share/containers/storage.conf"
f75f44da8edafdb23700424fc

But I can not get it to fail in common. Basically if the first Delete

[Luap99]

This is fixing:

$ echo hi | /bin/podman secret create --replace foobar - Error: deleting secret : : no secret data with ID $ echo hi | ./bin/podman secret create --replace foobar - WARN[0000] Failed to decode the keys ["storage.options.thinpool"] from "/usr/share/containers/storage.conf" f75f44da8edafdb23700424fc

But I can not get it to fail in common. Basically if the first Delete

What podman version are you using? Seems to work fine on podman main branch for me?

$ bin/podman secret ls
ID          NAME        DRIVER      CREATED     UPDATED
$ echo hi | ./bin/podman secret create --replace foobar -
62a02695feee451a8cbd2c526
$ echo hi | ./bin/podman secret create --replace foobar -
681045a705eee529bfb04d382

[rhatdan]

I went and looked and sadly (for me) i fixed this in previous common patches, and forgot. So this PR does not really fix the issue, but I think adds some decent tests and makes the code easier to understand in my opinion. I will change the commit message.

[rhatdan]

@edsantiago @lsm5 @Luap99 @mheon @giuseppe PTAL

[Luap99]

LGTM, I don't think the code change matters much but at least we now have a different error for both cases so we can at least tell which call failed if a users ever reports a bug so that seems good.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99, rhatdan

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 [Luap99,rhatdan]

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

[mheon]

/lgtm