Conversation
b29095d to
ba44f1a
Compare
ba44f1a to
e6230fc
Compare
e6230fc to
1e13657
Compare
1e13657 to
64ba43d
Compare
64ba43d to
167f632
Compare
|
Test of the CI build here, used Not certain of the best way to test the equivalent release build. |
joestringer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor nit but LGTM. I reviewed mainly just by doing diff -u between the original workflow and each new workflow, and between each new workflow here to identify any discrepancies.
- Add a comment to clearly indicate the untrusted code checkout - Split the release and dev CI steps into two separate workflows - Explicitly specify the permissions of the GitHub token in the workflows, to minimize the impact of token compromise. - Split the individual workflows into separate jobs, such that the build happens in a different job to the push, which will allows the separataion of the untrusted code build process from the authenticated push of the built artifact. Signed-off-by: Feroz Salam <feroz.salam@isovalent.com> Reported-by: Cédric Van Rompay <cedric.vanrompay@datadoghq.com>
167f632 to
533473f
Compare
tklauser
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Test of the CI build here, used
pull_requestas the trigger to test: https://github.com/cilium/cilium-cli/actions/runs/21437055364/job/61730258277?pr=3174Not certain of the best way to test the equivalent release build.
So far we've been testing changes to release workflows only when cutting a release anyway, making adjustments as we hit issues. This approach is not optimal but I can't think of a good way to test this without too much complication. So IMO it is fine to merge this untested and follow-up with fixes in case we hit issues on the next release.
@ferozsalam looks like the image build workflow is failing for the v0.19.1 tag I just released:
https://github.com/cilium/cilium-cli/actions/runs/21996193614/job/63557320522 The same error also occurs for all the dev image CI runs on https://github.com/cilium/cilium-cli/actions/workflows/images-dev.yaml?query=branch%3Amain |
Thanks to @cedricvanrompay for reporting this.