refactor(delete): clean up error handling and validation

[xenonnn4w]

Changes

• add wrapDeleteError to unify delete-specific error handling
• move delete error types to cmd/errors.go
• implement Unwrap() for errors.Is/As compatibility
• use NewErrNotInitializedFromPath for delete command
• introduce shared ErrNameAndPathConflict (reuse across delete and describe)
• simplify delete command flow
• update and add tests for validation and edge cases

Tests

• Updated:
  • TestDelete_NameAndPathExclusivity to assert ErrNameAndPathConflict
• Added:
  • TestDelete_NoFunctionAtPath

/kind cleanup

Release Note

Refactored delete command error handling for consistency and improved validation messages.

[knative-prow]

Hi @xenonnn4w. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative 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.

Details

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 39.50617% with 49 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.70%. Comparing base (5e9d6f8) to head (4117fc5).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cmd/errors.go	37.17%	46 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3658      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.33%   56.70%   +3.37%     
==========================================
  Files         181      181              
  Lines       20671    20784     +113     
==========================================
+ Hits        11025    11786     +761     
+ Misses       8573     7787     -786     
- Partials     1073     1211     +138     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	36.23% <4.93%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
e2e go	32.92% <0.00%> (?)
e2e node	28.63% <0.00%> (?)
e2e python	33.29% <0.00%> (?)
e2e quarkus	28.77% <0.00%> (?)
e2e rust	28.17% <0.00%> (?)
e2e springboot	26.66% <0.00%> (?)
e2e typescript	28.76% <0.00%> (?)
e2e-config-ci	17.97% <0.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
integration	17.42% <0.00%> (?)
unit macos-14	44.30% <40.98%> (+0.69%)	⬆️
unit macos-latest	44.30% <40.98%> (+0.69%)	⬆️
unit ubuntu-24.04-arm	44.48% <39.50%> (+0.68%)	⬆️
unit ubuntu-latest	45.16% <40.98%> (+0.69%)	⬆️
unit windows-latest	44.28% <40.98%> (+0.64%)	⬆️

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.

[gauron99]

thanks for the contribution! This is a nice change, however to the underlying issue -- this is only part of the solution I had in mind. It wasnt exactly a well-written issue to be picked up, hence I assigned myself, sorry 😄
Therefore I would like to keep the issue open. If you want we can split the issue in 2 -> error handling (what you did) and code improvements (what I need to think through how to do)

[gauron99]

just a nit from me

[gauron99]

/ok-to-test

[xenonnn4w]

Thank you for the review. I have applied your suggestion regarding uniformity! Also i will do a comment under the issue mentioning what is achieved under this pr so you edit the issue as per time in regard of "code improvements (what I need to think through how to do)" or i'll look more into it and confirm what my views on code improvements!

[gauron99]

/lgtm
/approve

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gauron99, xenonnn4w

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [gauron99]

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