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

Arcade SDK: Run signcheck against all build outputs of real-signed CI #1444

Closed
natemcmaster opened this issue Dec 4, 2018 · 8 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor

This repo now contains and produces the SignCheck tool (see src/SignCheck/), but the Arcade SDK isn't actually consuming this. This tool checks for code signing in scenarios not supported yet by SignTool.

Scenarios signcheck covers which (I don't believe) SignTool verifies:

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor Author

Example: dotnet/aspnetcore#4429. SignTool didn't catch that we had unsigned files in mpack's.

@tmat
Copy link
Member

tmat commented Dec 5, 2018

We should integrate this validation to the asset publishing infrastructure. That's the funnel thru which all assets that we publish go thru.

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could we also run it during the CI build? It would be nice to fail faster if something isn't properly code signed.

@tmat
Copy link
Member

tmat commented Dec 5, 2018

CI build doesn't sign anything, right? Only official build does.

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor Author

Only official build does.

That's what I meant by "CI build". As the issue title says, I think we should run signcheck against all outputs of real-signed builds.

@tmat
Copy link
Member

tmat commented Dec 5, 2018

Official build executes Arcade publish task, so it would be exactly what you asking for.

In general, not all build outputs are signed. Only outputs that are being published.

@markwilkie
Copy link
Member

We should definitely turn on signing validation for every build we sign. I'm not sure I care much if it's dong right before we publish or right after we sign. Backing it directly into publish seems like it might overload publish too much....but, I don't care much.

Regardless, let's get signing validation for sure.

@markwilkie
Copy link
Member

After further discussion - the current though is to add to the the AzDO release pipeline as part of the publish refactoring work.

cc/ @JohnTortugo

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants