Change the sha for the nop image

[afrittoli]

Changes

The sha for the nop image started returning 500 errors.
Pulling the image via the tag "latest" works and returns a different
sha, so updating our config to use the working one.

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

• Includes tests (if functionality changed/added)
• Includes docs (if user facing)
• Commit messages follow commit message best practices

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

• If you are adding a new binary/image to the cmd dir, please update
  the release Task to build and release this image.

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

Release Notes

Changed the sha of the nop image since it changed on dockerhub side, but no actual change of content in the image.

[afrittoli]

/kind misc

[tekton-robot]

This PR cannot be merged: expecting exactly one kind/ label

Available kind/ labels are:

kind/bug: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.
kind/flake: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test
kind/cleanup: Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt.
kind/design: Categorizes issue or PR as related to design.
kind/documentation: Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation.
kind/feature: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
kind/misc: Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one.

[tekton-robot]

This PR cannot be merged: expecting exactly one kind/ label

Available kind/ labels are:

kind/bug: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.
kind/flake: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a flakey test
kind/cleanup: Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt.
kind/design: Categorizes issue or PR as related to design.
kind/documentation: Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation.
kind/feature: Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
kind/misc: Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one.

[imjasonh]

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks!

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ImJasonH, sbwsg

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:

• OWNERS [ImJasonH,sbwsg]

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

[vdemeester]

Changed the sha of the nop image since it changed on dockerhub side, but no actual change of content in the image.

This is really weird (or bad…) as the digest should never change (nor disappear) in/from the registry 🤔 Was it temporary ?

[ghost]

Was it temporary ?

Yes, strangely we had the correct digest for tianon/true in 0.11 and 0.12. We updated that on May 20th but then it seems that the digest for tianon/true was reverted back to its original value in docker hub or something else happened after that time? Very odd.

[vdemeester]

So it's a bit tricky, a image "by digest" that is not refered by a tag can disappear (garbage collected) at some point… My guess is latest moved (most likely back) and the image got garbage collected (or something happened on the hub and some images were reverted…). In any case, we should try to stick to non latest tag to get the digest 😅 (and in any case, the hub shouldn't error out 500 in that can but 404 or something..)

[ghost]

I edited the issue here: #2714 just to add that I think we should avoid external images for Tekton's core features. It might not be a sustainable approach? In the abstract it seems better to me to avoid this whole problem altogether by keeping things "in-house".

[tianon]

This is interesting to me -- this digest can't have worked previously, because this is the digest of the image config, not an image manifest (unless Docker somehow does something clever when given a config object digest? but I don't think it does):

digest: sha256:009cce421096698832595ce039aa13fa44327d96beedb84282a69d3dbcf5a81b
{
   "schemaVersion": 2,
   "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.distribution.manifest.v2+json",
   "config": {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.container.image.v1+json",
      "size": 1511,
      "digest": "sha256:183cb5fd54142948ad88cc986a217465cfe8786cfdd89b1ed1fc49825da413a7"
   },
   "layers": [
      {
         "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.image.rootfs.diff.tar.gzip",
         "size": 147,
         "digest": "sha256:c53fb220cbad89d19e819673ea42ffcb938319825ef36f1b96df37af3d4665f5"
      }
   ]
}

[vdemeester]

huh… interesting… for some reason I managed to download this image (I do not remember if it was using docker, podman or skopeo lol.. 🤦‍♂️). But that explain why it fails, mystery solved I'ld say.. (I also may have messed up when updating it… I need to proper check how I did it…)

[manishtomar]

Thanks for the info @tianon. This explains why it is not working but it should still return 404 instead of 500. We will investigate internally depending on priority.