Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pull run image using digest reference in analyzed.toml (not image name from extensions) #2127

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 20, 2024

Conversation

natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

@natalieparellano natalieparellano commented Apr 16, 2024

Summary

Pull run image using digest reference in analyzed.toml (not image name from extensions)

Output

Before

After

Documentation

  • Should this change be documented?
    • Yes, see #___
    • No

Related

Resolves #___

…e from extensions)

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 0.34.0 milestone Apr 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the type/enhancement Issue that requests a new feature or improvement. label Apr 16, 2024
@jjbustamante jjbustamante removed this from the 0.34.0 milestone Apr 22, 2024
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 0.34.0 milestone Apr 29, 2024
@natalieparellano natalieparellano marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2024 13:53
@natalieparellano natalieparellano requested review from a team as code owners April 29, 2024 13:53
use the run image identifier to pull.

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
(as run image reference may be a daemon image id)

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added the type/chore Issue that requests non-user facing changes. label Apr 29, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 29, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.87500% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.52%. Comparing base (884dd18) to head (6405ff4).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2127      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.51%   70.52%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         251      251              
  Lines       17950    17972      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits        12655    12673      +18     
- Misses       4478     4481       +3     
- Partials      817      818       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
os_linux 69.62% <71.88%> (-<0.01%) ⬇️
os_macos 66.01% <71.88%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
os_windows 70.03% <71.88%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
unit 70.52% <71.88%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

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

@@ -866,7 +866,8 @@ func testAcceptance(
h.SkipIf(t, !lifecycle.SupportsFeature(config.RunImageExtensions), "")
})

it("uses the 5 phases, and tries to pull the new run image before restore", func() {
// FIXME: now that we pull the run image AFTER the restore phases, the restorer fails to access the non-existent run image when it does restore checks
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@natalieparellano What about this?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the acceptance tests need some more extensive re-working to make this test possible again (we need to fill in the fixture with the registry repo name for the run image before starting the test). Maybe we could make an issue for it, and update the comment to reference it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I managed to fix the acceptance test, and in so doing uncovered that I was doing wrong things previously, so thank you.

…r restore

When building to a daemon we need to pull the run image before restore in order to get target data

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@natalieparellano
Copy link
Member Author

Oof tests are failing, will take a look

The fixture changed, so the SHA changed

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@jjbustamante jjbustamante changed the title Pull run image using digest reference in analyzed.toml (not image nam… Pull run image using digest reference in analyzed.toml (not image name from extensions) May 20, 2024
@jjbustamante jjbustamante enabled auto-merge May 20, 2024 13:39
@jjbustamante jjbustamante merged commit c1676bb into main May 20, 2024
17 checks passed
@jjbustamante jjbustamante deleted the fix/run-image-pull branch May 20, 2024 13:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/chore Issue that requests non-user facing changes. type/enhancement Issue that requests a new feature or improvement.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

exporter fails to find run image when extensions switch to a tag that is a manifest list
2 participants