-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
DEVOPS-1990 Update to go 1.16 #151
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #151 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 90.83% 90.83%
========================================
Files 14 14
Lines 2073 2073
========================================
Hits 1883 1883
Misses 157 157
Partials 33 33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Other than the loose pinning not much to review here. I assume you're not considering deploying this on Friday and we'd let it sit on CI for a while?
Dockerfile
Outdated
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
FROM golang:1.12.5-alpine3.9 as build | |||
FROM golang:1.16-alpine as build |
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.
FROM golang:1.16-alpine as build | |
FROM golang:1.16.15-alpine3.15 as build |
Is there a reason you're using a looser pinning?
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 just picked one at random. I doubt they will change after 2 years but its possible. I don't really know how they decide to tag images.
Should we do the following instead?
FROM golang@sha256:9743f230f26d1e300545f0330fd4a514f554c535d967563ee77bf634906502b6 as build
# This golang:1.16-alpine3.15 was tagged Mar 3, 2022 at 9:02 pm
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 doubt it too but explicit is better than implicit. I think the version tags are good enough and more readable than a hash
Given we've seen this problem twice in 5 years we're going to have a hard time confirming it's fixed |
Co-authored-by: MrCreosote <MrCreosote@users.noreply.github.com>
forgot to mention we'll need release notes and a version bump at some point |
from
Attempted solution is to upgrade the httplib