fix: fix removeImage metric logic

[KevinBetterQ]

Signed-off-by: KevinBetterQ 1093850932@qq.com

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

fixing the statistical logic of ImageActionsCounter metric when removing image

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

fixes #2923

Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)? (你真的觉得不需要加测试吗？)

added

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2934 into master will increase coverage by 1.32%.
The diff coverage is 50%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2934      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.78%   68.11%   +1.32%     
==========================================
  Files         289      291       +2     
  Lines       18299    18331      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits        12221    12486     +265     
+ Misses       4645     4383     -262     
- Partials     1433     1462      +29

Flag	Coverage Δ
#criv1alpha2_test	34.81% <0%> (?)
#integration_test_0	36.07% <50%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
#integration_test_1	35.51% <50%> (ø)	⬆️
#integration_test_2	36.03% <50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
#integration_test_3	35.59% <50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
#node_e2e_test	34.17% <0%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
#unittest	27.98% <0%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
apis/server/image_bridge.go	77.86% <50%> (-0.6%)	⬇️
apis/server/utils.go	71.15% <0%> (-3.85%)	⬇️
cri/ocicni/netns.go	58.1% <0%> (-2.71%)	⬇️
daemon/mgr/spec_apparmor_linux.go	20% <0%> (ø)
daemon/mgr/spec_seccomp_linux.go	71.42% <0%> (ø)
daemon/mgr/container_types.go	71.32% <0%> (+1.47%)	⬆️
daemon/containerio/io.go	72.81% <0%> (+1.94%)	⬆️
cri/v1alpha2/cri_utils.go	89.57% <0%> (+2.7%)	⬆️
daemon/mgr/spec_linux.go	79.37% <0%> (+2.79%)	⬆️
cri/ocicni/cni_manager.go	62.26% <0%> (+2.83%)	⬆️
... and 10 more

[ZYecho]

LGTM, @KevinBetterQ could you make sure is this feature still be wanted?

[KevinBetterQ]

LGTM, @KevinBetterQ could you make sure is this feature still be wanted?

For status monitoring, it is indeed necessary

[ZYecho]

maybe we could judge the return err here to decide how to handle the counter? if err was not found, not add it?

[ZYecho]

it's more clear I think

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[Novicei]

Hi, thank you very much for your submission. I probably understand your logic, which means that the status monitoring in the original defer may lead to unnecessary statistics of the number of actions, because it may not be returned when the image operation is performed. But I think the logic is understandable, when you call the remove operation, it should cause the operation count to be incremented by 1, not what you changed.