fix: use "double fork" to invoke port forward within Taskfile

[JeffreyDallas]

Description

This pull request changes the following:

• Tried various method suggested by stackoverflow, chatGPT, Gemini, all suggesting Taskfile may have some bugs/limitation that causing "port-forward" was created in incorrect process groups. The workaround is to use double fork to invoke a program.
• Remove re-enable port-foward from test script

Related Issues

• Closes Port-forward called from Taskfile exit itself #1115

[JeffreyDallas]

Reference from Gemini

The Problem: Process Groups and Signal Propagation

The core issue is very likely related to process groups and how signals are propagated within them. Even with setsid (which creates a new session), if the kubectl port-forward process isn't properly placed in its own process group, Taskfile (or its parent process) might be sending signals that inadvertently terminate the kubectl process when a connection is established and then closed.

Here's why this happens:

Process Groups: Processes are organized into process groups. When a signal is sent to a process group, all processes within that group receive the signal.

Taskfile's Process Management: Taskfile, when it finishes executing a task, might be sending signals (like SIGHUP or SIGTERM) to its child processes and their process groups.

Connection Establishment and Closure: When you connect with nc, the following happens:

nc connects to the forwarded port.
kubectl handles the connection, forwarding traffic to the pod.
nc closes the connection.
This connection closure might be triggering some internal cleanup or signal handling within kubectl. If kubectl is still in the same process group as Taskfile, Taskfile's cleanup signals might then reach kubectl, causing it to exit.

The Solution: Explicit Process Group Management

The most reliable solution is to explicitly create a new process group for the kubectl port-forward process. This ensures that signals sent by Taskfile won't affect it

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results - Linux

  1 files  ±0   58 suites  ±0   4s ⏱️ ±0s
227 tests ±0  227 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
232 runs  ±0  232 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit f7dc8ca. ± Comparison against base commit 522b75d.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results - Windows

  1 files  ±0   58 suites  ±0   13s ⏱️ ±0s
227 tests ±0  227 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
232 runs  ±0  232 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit f7dc8ca. ± Comparison against base commit 522b75d.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[jeromy-cannon]

@JeffreyDallas , I already fixed this: #1132

[github-actions]

E2E Test Report

 16 files  ±0  121 suites  ±0   1h 22m 7s ⏱️ -33s
258 tests ±0  258 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
261 runs  ±0  261 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 9dd76c4. ± Comparison against base commit 0784b46.

[github-actions]

E2E Test Report

 17 files  126 suites   1h 26m 47s ⏱️
258 tests 258 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
269 runs  269 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit f7dc8ca.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
Report missing for 522b75d1	✅ 0.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (522b75d)	Report Missing	Report Missing	Report Missing
Head commit (f7dc8ca)	21171	17728	83.74%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#1148)	2	0	0.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

Footnotes

1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.97%. Comparing base (9bc6fcd) to head (f7dc8ca).
Report is 36 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/commands/mirror_node.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/commands/relay.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1148      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.37%   82.97%   -0.40%     
==========================================
  Files          77       77              
  Lines       20809    21171     +362     
  Branches     1717     1468     -249     
==========================================
+ Hits        17349    17567     +218     
- Misses       3363     3544     +181     
+ Partials       97       60      -37     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/commands/mirror_node.ts	71.02% <0.00%> (ø)
src/commands/relay.ts	82.02% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 35 files with indirect coverage changes

[jeromy-cannon]

we should support -q/--quiet on all commands/subcommands. Instead of removing the flag, just add the flag to the destroy subcommands.

[swirlds-automation]

🎉 This PR is included in version 0.34.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀