-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 283
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
Ensure read access when resolving run image location #2010
Ensure read access when resolving run image location #2010
Conversation
70f0bcb
to
a9acb35
Compare
Hi @pbusko could you rebase your branch? |
There are some subtleties around run image mirrors in pack that I'm not sure I fully understand, but I agree that it's confusing that it happens in both places (see also: buildpacks/rfcs#285 (comment)). If anyone has thoughts around how to improve it, please share! |
@pbusko I think you just need to run |
@jjbustamante I just had a look, but what I am seeing is
|
Hi @loewenstein, what lint version do you have? let me try to double check, sorry for late response I am on PTO but I want to ship a pack release candidate version :) |
Hi @jjbustamante, The only hint at a version, I would draw from the execution log above, i.e. =====> Installing golangci-lint...
cd tools && go install github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/cmd/golangci-lint@v1.51.1 However, as this seems to install as part of the Makefile, I would also expect comparable results. Maybe the Go versions has an influence? $ go version
go version go1.21.5 darwin/amd64 Anything else I should check? |
1020f73
to
ee5c9d2
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2010 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 79.52% 79.50% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 174 175 +1
Lines 13077 13114 +37
==========================================
+ Hits 10398 10425 +27
- Misses 2016 2022 +6
- Partials 663 667 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
d4bb3bb
to
1845758
Compare
Signed-off-by: Pavel Busko <pavel.busko@sap.com>
1845758
to
4566bb5
Compare
The styling issue has been fixed, however the |
@pbusko the failures are due to a flake that we haven't been able to get to the bottom of. We will try to devote some cycles to it soon |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome!!!
Thanks @loewenstein @pbusko
Summary
pack
performs it's own run-image resolution logic, and must be compliant with the platform spec, in particular with the buildpacks/spec#357Output
Before
pack
is not compliant with https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/357/files and avoids the run-image resolution baked into thelifecycle
(buildpacks/lifecycle#1024)After
pack
will ensure read access during the run-image resolutionDocumentation
Open Questions
Currently the
lifecycle
already has read-access and preferable registry resolution for the run-image. What would be the correct place for this? Should it be kept in both places or be left only in a single one?