-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
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
status: Render ostree metadata source-title key #1069
Conversation
|
bot, retest this please |
6cc4b0b
to
226e7f0
Compare
I reworked this on top of a prep commit that passes through the (ostree) commit metadata in a more generic way ⬆️ |
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.
Hmm, test-basic.sh
is being scary: 👻
**
GLib:ERROR:gvarianttypeinfo.c:163:g_variant_type_info_check: assertion failed: (info->alignment == 0 || info->alignment == 1 || info->alignment == 3 || info->alignment == 7)
/var/tmp/checkout/tests/check/test-basic.sh: line 52: 18686 Aborted (core dumped) rpm-ostree status > status.txt
ok status shows right version
* of the commit metadata. | ||
*/ | ||
{ g_autoptr(GVariant) base_meta = g_variant_get_child_value (commit, 0); | ||
g_variant_dict_insert (&dict, "commit-meta", "@a{sv}", base_meta); |
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.
Minor: let's call this base-commit-meta
and the other one simply commit-meta
to be more consistent?
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 was thinking that now that we're de-emphasizing the final commit a bit, using the more explicit naming for "base"/"layered" is clearer. So perhaps change this key to "base-commit-meta"?
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.
Yeah, that makes sense!
In another PR I did the manual bridging of commit metadata to deployment property, but that's annoying. Let's just bridge all commit metadata.
Depends: ostreedev/ostree#1296 As I mention in the commit there, I see two uses for this in rpm-ostree; first in our test suite, and second for OCI-built image imports. I also took a step further here and inject an `original-origin` metadata key, though we aren't actually using that yet. The problem I'm trying to solve there is that repeated `make vmoverlay` starts chaining things up, but that gets very confusing. I think we should always have `vmoverlay` unwind back to the base ref. (Or at least do that by default)
226e7f0
to
92d3311
Compare
Depends: ostreedev/ostree#1296 As I mention in the commit there, I see two uses for this in rpm-ostree; first in our test suite, and second for OCI-built image imports. I also took a step further here and inject an `original-origin` metadata key, though we aren't actually using that yet. The problem I'm trying to solve there is that repeated `make vmoverlay` starts chaining things up, but that gets very confusing. I think we should always have `vmoverlay` unwind back to the base ref. (Or at least do that by default) Closes: #1069 Approved by: jlebon
☀️ Test successful - status-atomicjenkins |
Depends: ostreedev/ostree#1296
As I mention in the commit there, I see two uses for this in rpm-ostree; first
in our test suite, and second for OCI-built image imports.
I also took a step further here and inject an
original-origin
metadatakey, though we aren't actually using that yet. The problem I'm trying
to solve there is that repeated
make vmoverlay
starts chaining things up,but that gets very confusing. I think we should always have
vmoverlay
unwindback to the base ref. (Or at least do that by default)