-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
image unit tests - make them pass on F34 with enforced short-name mode #9817
Conversation
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]>
[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 |
short-name-mode="enforcing" | ||
|
||
[aliases] | ||
"busybox"="docker.io/library/busybox" |
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.
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.
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.
Very good question! Yes, we will continue pulling from quay.io
.
LGTM |
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.
LGTM
/lgtm |
Helps bring #9554 forward. Please refer to the individual commits.
@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL