chore(ci): exit 77 when tools missing to distinguish skip from pass

[bitflicker64]

Purpose of the PR

• relates to [Bug] Docker containers never restart when Java process crashes — broken cron monitor + tail -f /dev/null supervision #3043
• follow-up to fix(server): fix foreground mode exit code propagation in startup scripts #3044, fix(pd,store): fg mode exit code propagation in startup scripts #3047
• close ci(test): distinguish "skipped due to missing tools" from "tested and passed" in startup script tests #3054
  The three startup test scripts (test-start-hugegraph.sh, test-start-hugegraph-pd.sh, test-start-hugegraph-store.sh) exit 0 when required tools (lsof, curl, java) are not found. Exit code 0 is indistinguishable from a passing test run — CI shows green even though no tests ran.

Main Changes

Test scripts:

• Change exit 0 → exit 77 in all tool-missing skip paths
• Change exit 0 → exit 77 in the Store ulimit -n skip path

CI workflows (server-ci.yml, pd-store-ci.yml):

• Wrap each test step with set +e / exit code capture
• Treat exit 77 as a visible ::notice:: annotation (not a failure)
• All other non-zero exits still fail the step

Verifying these changes

• Need tests and can be verified as follows:
  • Remove lsof from the runner path → CI step shows ::notice::... skipped instead of silently passing
  • Normal run (all tools present) → exit 0, step passes as before
  • Test failure → exit 1, step fails as before

Does this PR potentially affect the following parts?

• Dependencies
• Modify configurations
• The public API
• Other affects
• Nope

Documentation Status

• Doc - No Need

[bitflicker64]

@dosu review?

[dosubot]

I don't perform code reviews (assessing PRs for bugs, design, style, performance, or security). However, I can help in other ways — for example, I can research how the existing CI workflows or test scripts are structured, answer questions about the conventions used in the repository, or help with documentation updates related to this change.

Would any of those be useful?

To reply, just mention @dosu.

---

Share context across your team and agents. Try Dosu.

[imbajin]

Blocking: yes. Summary: The startup test wrapper still reports skipped suites as successful GitHub Actions steps. Evidence: static review of the workflow wrapper and local dummy-dist runs where the scripts returned 77.

Latest-head CI has visible failures; please also check dependency-check / build-commons (11): 🔗 https://github.com/apache/hugegraph/actions/runs/27120670959/job/80036825383

[imbajin]

+1 from my side. The previous concern has been addressed.

One non-blocking improvement for a future follow-up: the preflight checks are now duplicated between the workflow YAML and the startup scripts, so it may be worth consolidating them into a shared helper later to avoid drift when prerequisites change.

[bitflicker64]

+1 from my side. The previous concern has been addressed.

One non-blocking improvement for a future follow-up: the preflight checks are now duplicated between the workflow YAML and the startup scripts, so it may be worth consolidating them into a shared helper later to avoid drift when prerequisites change.

suree that makes sense should i add a TODO ?

[imbajin]

suree that makes sense should i add a TODO ?

I’m fine either way~