Skip to content
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

main: enable containers-storage (HMS-3235) #120

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 12, 2024

Conversation

kingsleyzissou
Copy link
Contributor

Enable the ability to use local containers from containers-storage rather than pulling containers from a remote registry.

Containerfile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Containerfile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@cdrage cdrage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm assuming you are mounting the local storage folder too to the bootc-image-builder container?

@kingsleyzissou
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm assuming you are mounting the local storage folder too to the bootc-image-builder container?

Yeah, exactly

Copy link

This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove "Stale" label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale Issue or PR with no activity for extended period of time label Feb 22, 2024
@kingsleyzissou kingsleyzissou removed the Stale Issue or PR with no activity for extended period of time label Feb 22, 2024
@kingsleyzissou
Copy link
Contributor Author

kingsleyzissou commented Mar 1, 2024

TODO: update readme (will push later)

Edit: I think github is having a moment. I've updated the README and pushed the changes... but nothing is showing up right now.

@kingsleyzissou kingsleyzissou force-pushed the local-containers branch 2 times, most recently from 2cb52a0 to 5f6ac82 Compare March 1, 2024 15:33
@kingsleyzissou
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like something in images changed between v38 and v41 that's resulting in a different manifest and causing CI to break.

diff --git a/images_v38.json b/images_v41.json
index 29acbab..a20d089 100644
--- a/images_v38.json
+++ b/images_v41.json
@@ -383,55 +383,35 @@
             }
           },
           "devices": {
-            "-": {
-              "type": "org.osbuild.loopback",
-              "options": {
-                "filename": "disk.img",
-                "start": 3127296,
-                "size": 17844191
-              }
-            },
-            "boot": {
-              "type": "org.osbuild.loopback",
-              "options": {
-                "filename": "disk.img",
-                "start": 1030144,
-                "size": 2097152
-              }
-            },
-            "boot-efi": {
-              "type": "org.osbuild.loopback",
-              "options": {
-                "filename": "disk.img",
-                "start": 4096,
-                "size": 1026048
-              }
-            },
             "disk": {
               "type": "org.osbuild.loopback",
               "options": {
-                "filename": "disk.img"
+                "filename": "disk.img",
+                "partscan": true
               }
             }
           },
           "mounts": [
             {
-              "name": "-",
+              "name": "part4",
               "type": "org.osbuild.ext4",
-              "source": "-",
-              "target": "/"
+              "source": "disk",
+              "target": "/",
+              "partition": 4
             },
             {
-              "name": "boot",
+              "name": "part3",
               "type": "org.osbuild.ext4",
-              "source": "boot",
-              "target": "/boot"
+              "source": "disk",
+              "target": "/boot",
+              "partition": 3
             },
             {
-              "name": "boot-efi",
+              "name": "part2",
               "type": "org.osbuild.fat",
-              "source": "boot-efi",
-              "target": "/boot/efi"
+              "source": "disk",
+              "target": "/boot/efi",
+              "partition": 2
             }
           ]
         }

bib/internal/setup/setup.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bib/internal/setup/setup.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kingsleyzissou
Copy link
Contributor Author

Will rebase on top of #244

Containerfile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kingsleyzissou kingsleyzissou force-pushed the local-containers branch 3 times, most recently from dbfac04 to 300908a Compare March 11, 2024 17:51
test/testutil.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/testcases.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/test_build.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@kingsleyzissou kingsleyzissou force-pushed the local-containers branch 3 times, most recently from 13ca87c to ff1da87 Compare March 11, 2024 19:09
Enable the ability to use local containers from containers-storage
rather than pulling containers from a remote registry.
Create a new method to get the `container_ref`, `images` and
`target_arch` that we can re-use.
Prepare the test's build command to accept a `local` flag which
enable ability to build local images in a follow up commit.
Add an integration tests for the local storage implementation. The
test creates a local container and then mounts the local container
store to podman, passing the `--local` flag to the build command.
Copy link
Member

@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I love this! ❤️ One nitpick, but it absolutely be done in a follow-up.

test/test_build.py Show resolved Hide resolved
ondrejbudai
ondrejbudai previously approved these changes Mar 12, 2024
Skopeo is now required to test the local containers, so we have to
install it.
README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Mar 12, 2024
@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Mar 12, 2024
@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Mar 12, 2024
@ondrejbudai ondrejbudai added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
Merged via the queue into osbuild:main with commit fbbccbb Mar 12, 2024
8 of 9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants