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

Add buildpack API to io.buildpacks.build.metadata label #328

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 23, 2022

Conversation

natalieparellano
Copy link
Member

This seems to have been an oversight in implementing overridable process args - the launcher has access to buildpack API in <layers>/config/metadata.toml but it is not printed in the label, hence platforms do not have all the required information to display processes correctly (or at least, to allow end users to distinguish between overridable and non-overridable args).

For newer platform API (0.10 and above) we need to know the buildpack API to know if the process args are overridable or not (when there is more than one element in the command, the process is definitely from a newer buildpack, but if there is only one element in the command, the args could be overridable or not overridable depending on the buildpack API).

Having this information will allow platforms such as pack to display process information to end users.

The lifecycle is already adding processes[0].buildpackID to the label, this updates the spec to reflect the current implementation.

For newer platform API (0.10 and above) we need to know the buildpack API to know
if the process args are overridable or not (when there is more than one element in the command,
the process is definitely from a newer buildpack, but if there is only one element in the command,
the args could be overridable or not overridable depending on the buildpack API).

Having this information will allow platforms such as pack to display process information to end users.

The lifecycle is already adding processes[0].buildpackID to the label, this updates the spec to reflect
the current implementation.

Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <narellano@vmware.com>
@natalieparellano natalieparellano requested a review from a team as a code owner November 10, 2022 18:11
@sambhav sambhav merged commit 55c8917 into platform/0.11 Nov 23, 2022
@sambhav sambhav deleted the fix/process-display branch November 23, 2022 14:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants