Revert "Better warning for --build-loglevel with binary builds"

[bparees]

Reverts #19120

fixes #19319

@nak3 @soltysh @juanvallejo fyi

[bparees]

/test extended_builds

[bparees]

@nak3 please create a new PR that fixes the message but retains its status as a warning, not an error.

[bparees]

@coreydaley or @gabemontero please give this a quick signoff.

[gabemontero]

/lgtm

[bparees]

flake #19282
/retest

[coreydaley]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bparees, coreydaley, gabemontero

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/oc/OWNERS [bparees]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[liggitt]

flake #19282

fixed in #19321

[bparees]

/retest

[nak3]

@bparees Thank you & I'm sorry for my mistake. I will send the PR after this revert was done.

But please allow me to learn from this my mistake. The error is from this code:

origin/test/extended/builds/failure_status.go

Lines 192 to 193 in 709739b

	br, err := exutil.StartBuildAndWait(oc, "statusfail-assemblescript", fmt.Sprintf("--from-dir=%s", binaryBuildDir), "--build-loglevel=5")
	o.Expect(err).NotTo(o.HaveOccurred())

, and it runs binary build with --build-loglevel=5.

Removing --build-loglevel from this binary build code (statusfail-assemblescript) was not an option to fix the broken test? I understood warning->error broke the test, but I would like to learn why this code needs to have --build-loglevel=5 with binary build, (which is invalid option actually).

[nak3]

I'm sorry, I found the comment in #19120 (comment) Please disregard my question above.

[bparees]

I would like to learn why this code needs to have --build-loglevel=5 with binary build, (which is invalid option actually).

the test doesn't need it and it should probably be removed from the test, but in this case it was actually probably a good thing it had it so we caught this before it broke a customer's script/pipeline.

[nak3]

@bparees Thank you so much. I understand and learned a lot.