fix: cluster and user name conflict on add kubeconfig with same context cluster and user

[poneding]

Description

See issue #1047 and Files changed.

Related Issue

resolves #1047

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update (changes only affecting documentation)

Checklist

• I have tested my changes locally and ensured they are functioning properly. Please run the make build and make test commands.
• I have added/updated unit or e2e tests to cover my changes.
• I have updated the relevant documentation. If you change commands or arguments, run make doc-gen to generate new documentation.

[the-label-bot]

The Label Bot has predicted the following:

Category	Value	Confidence	Applied Label

[sunny0826]

Hey there! Let's fix that unit test!

[poneding]

Hey there! Let's fix that unit test!

If use rand generate suffixe instead of hash, then I think we need to modify the test functions. So what do you think.

[sunny0826]

Hey there! Let's fix that unit test!

If use rand generate suffixe instead of hash, then I think we need to modify the test functions. So what do you think.

Of course.

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

Since your pull request originates from a forked repository, GitGuardian is not able to associate the secrets uncovered with secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.
Skipping this check run and merging your pull request will create secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
4387263	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	050e806	cmd/add_test.go	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[poneding]

Hey there! Let's fix that unit test!

If use rand generate suffixe instead of hash, then I think we need to modify the test functions. So what do you think.

Of course.

Updated.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 62.22222% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 19.56%. Comparing base (c509a69) to head (050e806).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cmd/add.go	62.22%	11 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1048      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   20.26%   19.56%   -0.70%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines        2615     2647      +32     
==========================================
- Hits          530      518      -12     
- Misses       2038     2075      +37     
- Partials       47       54       +7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	19.56% <62.22%> (-0.70%)	⬇️

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.

[sunny0826]

LGTM
Thank you for your valuable contribution to this project! Your work is greatly appreciated. 🎆

[sunny0826]

@all-contributors please add @poneding for code

[allcontributors]

@sunny0826

I've put up a pull request to add @poneding! 🎉