fix: Do not remove swap at every run

[scaronni]

Enhancement: The role is not idempotent if the system has swap. At every execution, the swap entries are remove and re-added in the next task.

Reason: There is specific code that deletes swap unconditionally. I could not find any apparent real reason for this piece of code to exist.

Result: Role is idempotent.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (551be65) 13.67% compared to head (7b9b594) 13.69%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #396      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   13.67%   13.69%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines        1733     1731       -2     
  Branches       79       79              
==========================================
  Hits          237      237              
+ Misses       1496     1494       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
sanity	16.54% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
library/blivet.py	0.00% <ø> (ø)

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

[richm]

[citest]

[richm]

well, the swap tests pass on el8 and el9 - as far as correctness I'll have to defer to @vojtechtrefny and @japokorn

[scaronni]

Just to be clear, the blivet module removes the swap on the live system and then re-adds it back in the subsequent one, which means if a system is using swap heavily there might be some serious issues.

The swap is removed anyway correctly if people specify it as absent in the variables.

[vojtechtrefny]

The special condition for swap was added in #90 @dwlehman do you remember why? Looking at the code I don't see a reason for always removing the swap entry.

[dwlehman]

Sadly I do not have any record or memory of why to do that, but I think that if all the tests are passing this change is probably good.

[vojtechtrefny]

Sadly I do not have any record or memory of why to do that, but I think that if all the tests are passing this change is probably good.

Ok, I think we can merge this. The tests are passing and we definitely don't want to always remove and then re-add the swap entry and I don't see another reason for having this condition.