"pull up" images when creating them, too#1560
Conversation
|
I can confirm that the last failing test in podman passes with this patch. I created containers/podman#18079 to confirm that everything else in CI passes as well. However looks like the tests here are not happy. |
|
Podman PR containers/podman#18079 shows several test failures so this seems to cause more regressions: |
76f0e4f to
9779558
Compare
|
@nalind Do you want me to repush containers/podman#18079 with your latest change to test again? |
|
@Luap99 If you could, that would be terrific. Thanks! |
|
ok, done |
|
still red unfortunately: https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/6632512290553856/html/int-podman-fedora-37-root-host-boltdb.log.html in the podman repo, then commit/push/open PR (do not forget to add |
|
@Luap99 no worries. Thanks for your help getting it this far! |
|
Is this ready to go in? |
|
Once tests pass in containers/podman#18089, yes. That PR currently combines this PR and containers/podman#18090. |
We previously started "pulling up" images when we changed their names, and started denying the presence of images in read-only stores which shared their ID with an image in the read-write store, so that it would be possible to "remove" names from an image in read-only storage. We forgot about the Flags field, so start pulling that up, too. Do all of the above when we're asked to create an image, since denying the presence of images with the same ID in read-only stores would prevent us from finding the image by any of the names that it "had" just a moment before we created the new record. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@redhat.com>
|
containers/podman#18089 is green and happy @nalind |
|
LGTM |
We previously started "pulling up" images when we changed their names, and started denying the presence of images in read-only stores which shared their ID with an image in the read-write store, so that it would be possible to "remove" names from an image in read-only storage.
Do the same when we're asked to create an image, since denying the presence of images with the same ID in read-only stores would prevent us from finding the image by any of the names that it "had" just a moment before we created the new record.