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

Always run passwd management code when DB value is nil #12685

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 22, 2021

Conversation

mheon
Copy link
Member

@mheon mheon commented Dec 22, 2021

This ensures that existing containers will still manage /etc/passwd by default, as they have been doing until now. New containers that explicitly set false will still have passwd management disabled, but otherwise the code will run.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] This will only be caught on upgrade and I don't really know how to write update tests - and Ed is on PTO.

This ensures that existing containers will still manage
`/etc/passwd` by default, as they have been doing until now. New
containers that explicitly set `false` will still have passwd
management disabled, but otherwise the code will run.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] This will only be caught on upgrade and I
don't really know how to write update tests - and Ed is on PTO.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 22, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mheon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 22, 2021
@cdoern
Copy link
Contributor

cdoern commented Dec 22, 2021

LGTM

@mheon mheon mentioned this pull request Dec 22, 2021
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Dec 22, 2021

/lgtm
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Dec 22, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 22, 2021
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM
/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Dec 22, 2021
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 74a58fa into containers:main Dec 22, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 22, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 22, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants