fix: register e2e Service cleanup defer before it can be skipped

[pujitha24]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

In tests/e2e/network/ensureloadbalancer.go, four specs create/expose a
Service and only register the cleanup defer DeleteService(...) after a
later Get(...) call, with one or more Expect(...) assertions running
between successful service creation and that defer registration. In
Ginkgo v2 + Gomega, a failing Expect(...) unwinds the current goroutine
via runtime.Goexit(); any defer not yet registered at that point is
skipped. If the Service already exists by then and one of those
intervening assertions fails, the cleanup never runs and the Service is
left behind in the cluster.

This PR moves each defer to be registered immediately after the point
where the Service is first known to exist (right after Create(...)
succeeds, or right after the createAndExposeDefaultServiceWithAnnotation(...)
helper returns), before any subsequent Expect(...) calls. This mirrors
the fix suggested in the issue report. utils.DeleteService already
treats a NotFound error as success, so registering the deferred delete
this early is safe even on the path where creation itself failed.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #10126

Special notes for your reviewer:

• This is a test-only change; tests/e2e/network/ensureloadbalancer.go is
  the only file touched (4 hunks, 14 insertions / 14 deletions).
• Validation performed: go build ./e2e/network/..., go vet ./e2e/network/...,
  gofmt -l, and golangci-lint run against the tests module — all pass,
  and golangci-lint reports the same 33 pre-existing issues before and after
  this change, confirming no new lint issues were introduced.
• These specs are Ginkgo e2e tests that require a live Azure/AKS cluster to
  execute; that isn't available in this environment, so the fix was not
  exercised against a live cluster. The correctness argument rests on Go's
  documented defer/Goexit semantics and static review of the reordered
  control flow, not a live reproduction.
• CI on this repo requires a maintainer to add ok-to-test — happy to
  address anything it surfaces.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[kubernetes-prow]

Hi @pujitha24. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Tip

We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain /lgtm and other bot rights. We recommend asking approvers on your previous PRs to sponsor you.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[kubernetes-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pujitha24
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign bridgetkromhout for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[pujitha24]

/assign @bridgetkromhout

Small test-only fix, ready for review whenever you have a moment.