-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 379
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 copy option to strip sparse manifests #1707
Open
bertbaron
wants to merge
7
commits into
containers:main
Choose a base branch
from
bertbaron:main
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a97367a
Added StripManifestList option to copy to strip incomplete manifests
bertbaron 8a79045
More generig option and some cleanup
bertbaron 9316f35
Cleanup
bertbaron d5beffd
Fixed documentation comment
bertbaron 972cb28
Removed List.RemoveInstance() from public interface
bertbaron ed4bca7
Removing images by index instead of digest
bertbaron 2d50474
Fixed spelling error
bertbaron File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
No; let’s build the infrastructure the right way rather than piling on tech debt.
It will never be any easier to get that done, and each such “small temporary thing” makes it harder.
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.
I appreciate your way of thinking, but its just that I'm a bit lost at how to do it. I can't move the public interface of course to not break it. I can extend it (embed it in an internal one). But I also can't move the implementation structs I guess because those also seem to be public. I can extend those with the internal interface, but then the methods would still be public on the struct and I'm not sure if that's ok. And is it possible in go to do something like return type overloading to get methods like Clone() right?
With some pointers I might be able to perform the refactoring but at this point I'm a bit stuck.
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.
Yes, this is the hard part of all this work.
Unlike interfaces, adding new methods to structs is ABI-safe. So my first guess is that the
manifest.List
interface, and the methods that create that (ListFromBlob
) should be ~duplicated in internal packages. The implementations would probably also be moved to internal-only, with public aliases (type OCI1Index = internal.OCI1Index
), but I’m much less certain about this part.Alternatively… I think we’ll need to make these refactors for other purposes (adding/removing zstd-compressed variants) fairly soon anyway (but I’m not exactly sure when). So it might be an option to wait with this PR until that infrastructure work is done by other people.
Cc: @vrothberg .
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.
That's helpful, I'll give it a try.
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.
I tried but didn't succeed. Apparently go requires return types of a method to be equal in order to implement an interface, a subtype is not supported (I think its the lack of covariance support as described here: golang/go#30602). So the
Clone
method for example has to return a publicList
and not an internal one. But it also doesn't allow a more specificListUpdate
to be returned for example.One option I considered was to add methods like
CloneInternal()
to the private interface. But that seems to be impossible without introducing package cycles because the public interface and public creator method are in the same package. The only workaround/hack I can think of is to do some dynamic registration to redirect the public creator to the private creator.On the other hand, while I learned more about go with this exercise there's still a lot more for me to learn so I might have overlooked some other options. So unless someone can give me a clear pointer to something I missed I think I'll give up for now.