Dagger secrets #269
Merged
Dagger secrets #269
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
passing secrets in command args is never a good idea. they show up in the process tree and get saved into shell history. no point in trying to pretend this is safe. but really, Dagger doesn't support it, and I think that's OK, so let's just relax the test a bit.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uses Dagger's new secrets API, supporting secret mounts and env. 🎉
This brings the Dagger runtime tests down to just 3 failures: TLS, mounting subpaths of cache mounts, and using OCI image archives for thunks.
There's a slight concession here: the runtime test suite no longer asserts that secrets passed in commandline args are safe from being leaked in the image. Dagger doesn't support it, and you shouldn't be passing secrets in command args anyway.
cc @dolanor :)