[Bug] add the return value check to pass linter

[Jeffwan]

Pull Request Description

it's my bad. I want to rebase a change and merge this one without waiting for test pass

Related Issues

Resolves: #[Insert issue number(s)]

Important: Before submitting, please complete the description above and review the checklist below.

---

Contribution Guidelines (Expand for Details)

We appreciate your contribution to aibrix! To ensure a smooth review process and maintain high code quality, please adhere to the following guidelines:

Pull Request Title Format

Your PR title should start with one of these prefixes to indicate the nature of the change:

• [Bug]: Corrections to existing functionality
• [CI]: Changes to build process or CI pipeline
• [Docs]: Updates or additions to documentation
• [API]: Modifications to aibrix's API or interface
• [CLI]: Changes or additions to the Command Line Interface
• [Misc]: For changes not covered above (use sparingly)

Note: For changes spanning multiple categories, use multiple prefixes in order of importance.

Submission Checklist

• PR title includes appropriate prefix(es)
• Changes are clearly explained in the PR description
• New and existing tests pass successfully
• Code adheres to project style and best practices
• Documentation updated to reflect changes (if applicable)
• Thorough testing completed, no regressions introduced

By submitting this PR, you confirm that you've read these guidelines and your changes align with the project's contribution standards.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Jeffwan, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a linter warning by modifying how the return values of flag.Set calls are handled within the integration test suite. By assigning these return values to the blank identifier, the code now complies with linting rules without introducing any functional changes or altering the behavior of the tests.

Highlights

• Linter Compliance: Explicitly ignored the return values of flag.Set calls by assigning them to the blank identifier _ to satisfy linter requirements.
• Test Suite Modification: The changes were applied within the test/integration/controller/suit_test.go file, specifically in the BeforeSuite function.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[Jeffwan]

I will wait for the test fully pass to merge it this time..

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses a linter warning by explicitly ignoring the error returned from flag.Set. While this is a valid way to fix the linter issue, it's not the most robust solution for test setup code. I've suggested an improvement to handle the error using the idiomatic approach for this test suite, which is to assert that the operation succeeds using Expect(...).To(Succeed()). This will make the test setup more resilient to future changes and provide clearer error messages if something goes wrong.