Updated workflow to show error on failing test

[HarK-github]

Title:

Fix: Ensure pipeline fails on failing example tests (#2408)

---

Description:

This PR fixes issue #2408, where the CI pipeline did not fail when tests in the examples/ folder failed.
Previously, the test step used the nick-fields/retry@v3 action without strict failure handling, allowing the workflow to pass even when tests failed after all retries.

Changes made:

• Updated the “Test with Retry Logic” step in .github/workflows/test.yml:

  • Added retry_on: error to ensure retries only occur on real failures.
  • Added set -e inside the command block so the job stops immediately on test failure.
  • Verified that the pipeline fails properly after two unsuccessful retries.

• Confirmed go test ./examples/... exits with a non-zero status when tests fail.

• Retained coverage collection and filtering steps.

Verification steps:

1. Introduced an intentional failing test in examples/ to confirm the CI job fails as expected.
2. Observed the pipeline correctly retry twice, then exit with a failure status.
3. Removed the failing test and verified the pipeline passes successfully again.

Local testing:

go test ./examples/... -v
echo $?
# Returns 1 on failure, 0 on success

Motivation:

This fix ensures CI integrity — failed example tests now correctly fail the pipeline, preventing false-positive builds.

---

Additional Notes:

• No new dependencies added.

---

Checklist

• Verified example tests now fail the pipeline correctly.
• Updated workflow logic with retry_on: error and set -e.
• Code formatted and linted.
• No decrease in code coverage.
• Linked to issue Test Pipeline do not fail on failing tests in Examples folder #2408.

[HarK-github]

@coolwednesday @Umang01-hash can you please review this .

[HarK-github]

@coolwednesday @Umang01-hash can you please review this .

@Umang01-hash @coolwednesday any updates..

[HarK-github]

@coolwednesday @Umang01-hash the example tests are failing now successfully as per the issue mentioned..

[Umang01-hash]

@HarK-github Thanks for the contribution — the functionality looks promising!
However, the PR is currently failing due to a test error, and we’ll need to get that resolved before merging to avoid breaking the pipelines.

Would you be open to taking a look at the failing test and updating the PR? Happy to help if you need any guidance along the way.

[HarK-github]

@Umang01-hash Can you run the test again?

[aryanmehrotra]

Hi @HarK-github, we have re-run the pipeline, and it failed for two prior versions of go.
You can go through and check whats the exact issue and fix it, we can discuss on the same if you face any issue.

[HarK-github]

@aryanmehrotra Hey .. How can i test the workflowpipeline myself ? right now I have to keep asking for it..

[aryanmehrotra]

Rather than creating a PR directly on the gofr-repo, you can create a PR on your forked version's development that should also trigger the pipeline and you will have complete access there.

[HarK-github]

@Umang01-hash @aryanmehrotra Issue is resolved please check .

[Umang01-hash]

• All the line spaces you have removed from the file go.yml should be reverted back as they provide readibility to the file and there is no use for removing them.

While i understand you changed the PORTS for KAFKA, MYSQL and REDIS in order to make the pipeline pass , can you please tell if this was really the solution or why did changing ports helped? Since already the pipeline is passing with same ports used....

[Umang01-hash]

Why have we removed these comments from the workflow file. They make it easier to understand for anyone.

[HarK-github]

Okay will resolve these

[Umang01-hash]

Why you have removed the space between these lines?

[Umang01-hash]

This change also should be reverted..

[HarK-github]

@Umang01-hash eeveral tests show “route not registered”, binding errors and “could not connect” messages consistent with services not being at the expected addresses. I have attached an example from current deployed workflow output. That's why I changed the ports