(PTFE-3162) Fix volume delete for scaleway

[matthiasL-scality]

This pull request improves the reliability of deleting block storage volumes in the Scaleway backend by adding retry logic when volumes are temporarily stuck in the "in_use" state. It also adds comprehensive unit tests to ensure the new retry behavior works as expected in both success and failure scenarios.

Improvements to Scaleway block volume deletion:

• Added exponential backoff retry logic to the delete method in scaleway.py so that if a block storage volume is still "in_use" or marked as a "protected_resource", the system will retry deletion up to five times with increasing wait times between attempts. This handles cases where Scaleway takes time to detach volumes after server deletion. [1] [2]
• Ensured that if all retries are exhausted and the volume still cannot be deleted, an appropriate warning is logged and the process continues gracefully. [1] [2]

Testing enhancements:

• Added test_delete_volume_in_use_retry_succeeds to verify that the retry logic successfully deletes a volume after temporary "in_use" errors.
• Added test_delete_volume_in_use_retry_exhausted to verify that a warning is logged and the correct result is returned if the volume remains "in_use" after all retries.

[cmeron]

Please take a look at my comments but overall LGTM!

[matthiasL-scality]

@claude[agent] review

[Claude]

@claude[agent] review

Review completed. The implementation looks good:

✅ Properly uses block_error.status_code for HTTP status code checking
✅ Retry logic with exponential backoff (1s, 2s, 4s, 8s) handles temporary "in_use" states
✅ Correctly distinguishes between 404 (not found), 412 (in_use), and other errors
✅ Comprehensive test coverage for both success and failure scenarios
✅ Graceful fallback from Block API to Instance API for different volume types

The code correctly addresses the volume deletion reliability issue for Scaleway block storage.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.79%. Comparing base (a938a6c) to head (f9abec7).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (4.54%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #712      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.71%   85.79%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          36       36              
  Lines        1799     1809      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         1542     1552      +10     
  Misses        257      257              

Flag	Coverage Δ
api	56.77% <4.54%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
unit	70.53% <100.00%> (+0.16%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[trunk-io]

     

View Full Report ↗︎ ⋅ Docs