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

image unit tests - make them pass on F34 with enforced short-name mode #9817

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 25, 2021

Conversation

vrothberg
Copy link
Member

Helps bring #9554 forward. Please refer to the individual commits.

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL

In contrast to `assert.NoError`, `require.NoError` treats mismatches
fatally which in many cases is necessary to prevent subsequent checks
from segfaulting.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
Defer cleaning up the test artifacts as early as possible.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
Since some unit tests use "busybox", we need to point it to some alias
if we want it to pass CI on F34 where we're running in enforced mode.

Furthermore, make sure that the registries.conf can actually be
overridden in the code.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vrothberg

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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 25, 2021
short-name-mode="enforcing"

[aliases]
"busybox"="docker.io/library/busybox"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is going to respect our proxy over to using quay.io instead of docker for images?

Just checking since the rate-limiting is a very real problem.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very good question! Yes, we will continue pulling from quay.io.

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Mar 25, 2021

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@ashley-cui ashley-cui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Mar 25, 2021

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 25, 2021
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit d64ebc5 into containers:master Mar 25, 2021
@vrothberg vrothberg deleted the image-unit-aliases branch March 26, 2021 08:18
@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 23, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 23, 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.

7 participants