Skip to content

config: drop SetDefaultConfigFilePath($CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF)#2420

Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit intocontainers:mainfrom
giuseppe:do-not-force-storage-conf
Apr 21, 2025
Merged

config: drop SetDefaultConfigFilePath($CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF)#2420
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit intocontainers:mainfrom
giuseppe:do-not-force-storage-conf

Conversation

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@giuseppe giuseppe commented Apr 14, 2025 •
edited by sourcery-ai bot
Loading

the containers/storage setup code already looks for that, and forcefully setting it confuses storage setup in
loadStoreOptionsFromConfFile.

Summary by Sourcery

Chores:

  • Remove redundant code that sets the default storage configuration file path

@giuseppe
config: drop SetDefaultConfigFilePath($CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF)
f500908 
the containers/storage setup code already looks for that, and
forcefully setting it confuses storage setup in
loadStoreOptionsFromConfFile.

Closes: containers#2419

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
@sourcery-ai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sourcery-ai bot commented Apr 14, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request removes the explicit setting of the default configuration file path using the CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF environment variable. The code already handles this, and explicitly setting it can cause conflicts.

No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation.

File-Level Changes

Change Details Files
Removed the setting of the default configuration file path using the CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF environment variable.
  • Removed the code block that looked up the CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF environment variable.
  • Removed the call to types.SetDefaultConfigFilePath when the environment variable was set.
 pkg/config/default.go

Possibly linked issues

  • #0: The PR fixes the issue by removing the explicit setting of the config file path, which caused the unexpected behavior.
Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

  • Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
  • Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
    issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
    review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
  • Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
    request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
    @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
  • Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
    the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
    want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
    (re-)generate the summary at any time.
  • Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
    request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
  • Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
    pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
    addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
  • Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
    request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
    want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
    @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!
  • Generate a plan of action for an issue: Comment @sourcery-ai plan on
    an issue to generate a plan of action for it.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

  • Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
    summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
  • Change the review language.
  • Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
  • Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the do-not-force-storage-conf branch from a90192a to f500908 Compare April 14, 2025 08:17
sourcery-ai[bot]
sourcery-ai bot approved these changes Apr 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @giuseppe - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

  • Consider adding a comment explaining why SetDefaultConfigFilePath was removed.
Here's what I looked at during the review
  • 🟢 General issues: all looks good
  • 🟢 Security: all looks good
  • 🟢 Testing: all looks good
  • 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
  • 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.

Luap99
Luap99 reviewed Apr 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

overall seems logical, however there are quite a few podman test issues in containers/podman#25870.
Seems like it now requires the runroot to be set which then in turn means it could potentially break real users that use CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF. Is there a reason why c/storage requires runroot/graphroot to be set? IF we only want to change another field that should be valid, no?

@giuseppe giuseppe mentioned this pull request Apr 14, 2025
Merged
@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented Apr 14, 2025

Seems like it now requires the runroot to be set which then in turn means it could potentially break real users that use CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF. Is there a reason why c/storage requires runroot/graphroot to be set? IF we only want to change another field that should be valid, no?

if we use the default runroot, then we can risk to use a directory that is used with another graphroot (the default one) and have all the possible conflicts. Anyway, the fact that CONTAINERS_STORAGE_CONF was broken for years, it means there are not many users out there, so let's try adding: containers/storage#2318

(another multi-repo fix and manual vendoring fun day)

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented Apr 14, 2025

@Luap99 tests pass with the c/storage patch

@mheon
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mheon commented Apr 14, 2025

This LGTM. Should we wait for the c/s PR to merge first, vendor it in as part of this merge?

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented Apr 14, 2025

yes, let's wait for that first and I'll revendor here

Luap99
Luap99 approved these changes Apr 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 14, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, Luap99, sourcery-ai[bot]

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

@Luap99
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Luap99 commented Apr 16, 2025

(containers/storage#2318 has not been included in the c/storage version tag so this should not be merged until we have cut c/common here as well)

@rhatdan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rhatdan commented Apr 21, 2025

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Apr 21, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 7d75266 into containers:main Apr 21, 2025
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@Luap99 Luap99 Luap99 approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai[bot] sourcery-ai[bot] approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@rhatdan rhatdan

Labels

approved lgtm

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@giuseppe @mheon @Luap99 @rhatdan