fix: remove the dev override of the force flag

[andrewhertog]

Fixes: #3798
Related: Relevant tracking issues, for context
Merge before/after: Dependent or prerequisite PRs

Description

Removes the force flag override for the dev command. Usage of the force flag should be consistent in all commands, and should not default to true.
If users wish to enable the --force flag on deploys, it can be added in skaffold.yaml in the additional flags section that each deployment option provides.

User facing changes (remove if N/A)

For users depending on the --force=true with the dev command, the following changes can be added

deploy:
  helm:
  - flags:
      upgrade: ['--force']
  kubectl:
  - flags:
      apply: ['--force=true']
  kustomize:
  - flags:
      apply: ['--force=true']

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4513 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4513      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.35%   72.37%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         333      333              
  Lines       12959    12959              
==========================================
+ Hits         9377     9379       +2     
+ Misses       2984     2983       -1     
+ Partials      598      597       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cmd/skaffold/app/cmd/flags.go	86.36% <ø> (ø)
...affold/kubernetes/portforward/kubectl_forwarder.go	63.41% <0.00%> (+2.43%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ac11549...4c9394d. Read the comment docs.

[nkubala]

lol, nice timing @andrewhertog - I just started looking into this today while you were creating this PR and left a comment on the original issue before I saw you opened this 😆

can you go have a look at my comment and maybe tell me what you think? i'm inclined to accept this PR, but want to fully understand it first.

#3798 (comment)

[andrewhertog]

lol, nice timing @andrewhertog - I just started looking into this today while you were creating this PR and left a comment on the original issue before I saw you opened this 😆

can you go have a look at my comment and maybe tell me what you think? i'm inclined to accept this PR, but want to fully understand it first.

#3798 (comment)

I've followed up with a comment on that thread. Hope it helps. I have an integration test that is failing right now, and will look closer at it tomorrow.

[andrewhertog]

@nkubala The Integration tests failed with the following:

TestDebug/buildpacks: util.go:204: Timed out waiting for pods [nodejs] ready in namespace skaffoldbdhdf
--- FAIL: TestDebug (1148.00s)
    --- FAIL: TestDebug/kubectl (409.79s)
    --- FAIL: TestDebug/kustomize (303.52s)
    --- FAIL: TestDebug/buildpacks (434.69s)

When I run INTEGRATION_TEST_ARGS="-run=TestDebug/" make integration-in-kind locally, it passes.

Update: Re-ran integration tests on Travis, and it succeeded. first failure must have been a false failure.

[nkubala]

thanks @andrewhertog, and everyone else who helped clarify this issue!