Skip to content

Conversation

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor

@umohnani8 umohnani8 commented Apr 9, 2021

Insecure, blocked, and allowed registries now accept
wildcard entries so add logic to parse that from the
Image CR.
Update tests to reflect the new parsing logic for wildcards.

Signed-off-by: Urvashi Mohnani [email protected]

@umohnani8 umohnani8 changed the title Parse registries for wildcard entries [WIP] Parse registries for wildcard entries Apr 9, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 9, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: umohnani8
To complete the pull request process, please assign adambkaplan after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @adambkaplan in a comment when ready.

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

Details 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

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tests will fail till containers/image#1191 gets in and we vendor it in here.
@vrothberg @mtrmac @lsm5 PTAL

Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don’t think this works correctly, and the validation approach worries me.

Ultimately it’s also a bit early, the semantics of the matching (and of the allowed configuration format WRT Prefix/Location presence) is still somewhat in flux.

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mtrmac addressed comments, PTAL

@umohnani8 umohnani8 changed the title [WIP] Parse registries for wildcard entries [WIP]Bug 1948593: Parse registries for wildcard entries Apr 12, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/severity-unspecified Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is unspecified for the PR. label Apr 12, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@umohnani8: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1948593, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.8.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

[WIP]Bug 1948593: Parse registries for wildcard entries

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Apr 12, 2021
@umohnani8 umohnani8 changed the title [WIP]Bug 1948593: Parse registries for wildcard entries Bug 1948593: Parse registries for wildcard entries Apr 12, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. and removed do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. labels Apr 12, 2021
@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed bugzilla/severity-unspecified Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is unspecified for the PR. bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Apr 12, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@umohnani8: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1948593, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.8.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.8.0)
  • bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla ([email protected]), skipping review request.

Details

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@umohnani8 umohnani8 force-pushed the wildcards branch 2 times, most recently from c8b6720 to 6f0e537 Compare April 12, 2021 16:28
Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding the tests.

Copy link
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM as far as TestRegMatchesScope and TestIsValidRegistryOrWildcardScope are concerned and they pass. I'll defer to @mtrmac and @vrothberg for further review.

Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@umohnani8 umohnani8 force-pushed the wildcards branch 2 times, most recently from bc0f719 to f4057e8 Compare July 22, 2021 15:20
@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mtrmac addressed comments, PTAL

Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code LGTM, if we are in a hurry; basically only documentation concerns. Of those, the public API documentation the two functions are the only externally-visible.

@umohnani8
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mtrmac addressed the final comments, PTAL

Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, feel free to merge without another review round.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Jul 22, 2021

/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 22, 2021
Insecure, blocked, and allowed registries now accept
wildcard entries so add logic to parse that from the
Image CR.
Update tests to reflect the new parsing logic for wildcards.

Signed-off-by: Urvashi Mohnani <[email protected]>
Needed for updates to tests to pass.

Signed-off-by: Urvashi Mohnani <[email protected]>
@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Jul 22, 2021

/lgtm (also exposing @vrothberg and @lsm5 ’s reviews to the tooling)

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Jul 22, 2021

/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 Jul 22, 2021
@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Jul 22, 2021

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 22, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 22, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5, mtrmac, umohnani8

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 8b8348d into openshift:master Jul 22, 2021
mtrmac added a commit to mtrmac/openshift-apiserver that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2021
... instead of a local copy.

The code is currently 100% identical, so this doesn't
make a difference, but that will change with
openshift/runtime-utils#11 .

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
mtrmac added a commit to mtrmac/openshift-apiserver that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2021
... instead of a local copy.

The code is currently 100% identical, so this doesn't
make a difference, but that will change with
openshift/runtime-utils#11 .

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
mtrmac added a commit to mtrmac/openshift-apiserver that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2021
... instead of a local copy.

The code is currently 100% identical, so this doesn't
make a difference, but that will change with
openshift/runtime-utils#11 .

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
mtrmac added a commit to mtrmac/openshift-apiserver that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2022
... instead of a local copy.

The code is currently 100% identical, so this doesn't
make a difference, but that will change with
openshift/runtime-utils#11 .

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

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.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants