-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 221
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
Report pulled image size #1208
Report pulled image size #1208
Conversation
Build failed. ❌ unit-test FAILURE in 23m 12s |
e5dd8cd
to
e5b2fcf
Compare
Build failed. ❌ unit-test FAILURE in 27m 39s |
e5b2fcf
to
3819924
Compare
Build failed. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 53s |
recheck |
Build failed. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 10m 04s |
The previous
|
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.
Thanks for working on this, Nieves! Some comments below:
Currently, the CI has been timing out on Fedora 36 nodes [1]. It's possible that this is due to the recent expansion of the test suite, which already required increasing the timeout for Fedora Rawhide [2]. [1] containers#1191 containers#1208 [2] Commit e8f4e9c containers#1195
Currently, the CI has been timing out on Fedora 36 nodes [1]. It's possible that this is due to the recent expansion of the test suite, which already required increasing the timeout for Fedora Rawhide [2]. [1] containers#1191 containers#1208 [2] Commit e8f4e9c containers#1195 containers#1212
Due to the recent expansion of the test suite, we might have to increase the timeout for stable Fedoras: #1212 We recently had to do that for Fedora Rawhide. |
3819924
to
8359622
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 10m 27s |
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.
Thanks for rebasing this on top of #1212
We still need to address the review comments about the code, though.
005f794
to
a1d9fa0
Compare
Build failed. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 10m 50s |
recheck |
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 10m 48s |
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.
Thanks for the updates, @nievesmontero ! Could you please squash the commits into one? You can use git rebase -i for that.
Further comments below:
7c1e34b
to
b83611d
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 10m 48s |
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.
Thanks for the updates, @nievesmontero ! It looks like there are some remnants from a git rebase
or git merge
or something similar that had conflicts and wasn't fully cleaned up.
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.
Some of the comments from the past reviews still need to be addressed.
The main things that are left to do here are:
See above for details on each of these points. |
b83611d
to
cbd8e39
Compare
e7d832a
to
2d86d83
Compare
328ea8a
to
3033d29
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 8m 20s |
394a64c
to
19df46d
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 04s |
19df46d
to
2096a3f
Compare
Build failed. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 24s |
recheck |
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 15s |
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.
Thanks for the updates, @nievesmontero ! This is looking a lot better, well done. Some minor details:
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.
One quick note about the commit message ...
Unless the change is massive, it's not so important to write things like:
The following package and file have been created src/pkg/skopeo/skopeo.go
... because it's obvious from looking at the commit (with git show
) and is of no interest to downstream distributors. What's more important is that it adds an optional dependency on Skopeo, because that's going to be important for downstream distributors, and to clarify why it's optional. Those details aren't so obvious until someone carefully looks at the commit, but they are still important.
2096a3f
to
5228806
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 03s |
5228806
to
452fdda
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 8m 42s |
452fdda
to
5081239
Compare
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 8m 52s |
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 8m 30s |
This uses 'skopeo inspect' to get the size of the image on the registry, which is usually less than the size of the image in a local containers/storage image store after download (eg., 'podman images'), because they are kept compressed on the registry. Skopeo >= 1.10.0 is needed to retrieve the sizes [1]. However, this doesn't add a hard dependency on Skopeo to accommodate size-constrained operating systems like Fedora CoreOS. If skopeo(1) is missing or too old, then the size of the image won't be shown, but everything else would continue to work as before. Some changes by Debarshi Ray. [1] Skopeo commit d9dfc44888ff71a6 containers/skopeo@d9dfc44888ff71a6 containers/skopeo#641 containers#752 Signed-off-by: Nieves Montero <[email protected]>
Build succeeded. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 9m 14s |
#752
Signed-off-by: Nieves Montero [email protected]