fix(bundle)!: bundle feature flag and version requirement#4600
Merged
brandtkeller merged 12 commits intomainfrom Feb 18, 2026
Merged
fix(bundle)!: bundle feature flag and version requirement#4600brandtkeller merged 12 commits intomainfrom
brandtkeller merged 12 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
✅ Deploy Preview for zarf-docs canceled.
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
brandtkeller
commented
Feb 13, 2026
| endif | ||
|
|
||
| CLI_VERSION ?= $(if $(shell git describe --tags),$(shell git describe --tags),"UnknownVersion") | ||
| CLI_VERSION ?= $(if $(shell git describe --tags),$(shell git describe --tags),"unset-development-only") |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels like the appropriate default - given that we have logic that checks for this constant?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's pretty unlikely to be used given that it's only used when git describe --tags fails, but it's fine to be changed
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To elaborate - we have version compare logic that checks for the constant but we have tests that run where version will still resolve to UnknownVersion which is not handled. Aligning on an expected non-tag default should close the gap here some.
brandtkeller
commented
Feb 13, 2026
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
brandtkeller
commented
Feb 13, 2026
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller <brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com>
AustinAbro321
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
Description
This PR introduces a few breaking changes to largely resolve some of the symptoms of the problem of introducing new files into the package layout and backwards incompatibility.
Given the scope of changes released for the bundle format signature - the compatibility and errors involved could have been improved by placing a feature flag in front of the bundle format process. This would allow the default workflows with new releases to still be backwards compatible. This allows for multiple releases to be introduced that contain the updated verification logic for bundles before we remove generation of the legacy signature entirely.
Future Proofing
The root of the original issue is that new files outside of the checksums integrity check cannot exist in the package and be backwards compatible. This is a very niche case because in most cases the file should always be included in the checksums list.
This PR introduces
ProvenanceFilesto the build data for two purposes:There is merit on concern on security of a MITM injection of an untracked file - but this is ever present and should be mitigated by a package being signed whereby the zarf.yaml cannot be modified.
Summary
Related Issue
Fixes #4591
Relates to #
Checklist before merging