-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 286
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
When platform api >= 0.9, analyzer accepts -skip-layers and -launch-cache #1417
Conversation
…ache Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
f2d5043
to
4fb5ba7
Compare
It's weird... the dev version of pack from
buildpacks/lifecycle#847 fixes this... but TBH IDK why it's necessary. There must be some difference in how pack is creating volumes "for real" and when running the acceptance tests. |
I guess we should block this on buildpacks/lifecycle#847 |
Hmmm... I'm not sure I would say that. Not looking so deep into the problem, I am more leaning towards this being an issue for linux since that is where they are mostly failing. IIRC, in linux some permissions/ownership between host and container are linked. Don't quote me on that but I'm willing to place my bets more in that direction. Didn't read all of this but it seems to validate some of my thinking and why I think this would work with your fix: https://blog.gougousis.net/file-permissions-the-painful-side-of-docker/
|
Signed-off-by: Natalie Arellano <[email protected]>
639276b
to
28e5691
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1417 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.27% 81.27% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 151 151
Lines 9760 9764 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 7931 7935 +4
Misses 1352 1352
Partials 477 477
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
I don't know why Codecov is unhappy - it's highlighting lines that I didn't change... IDK what to say. The patch coverage is 88% which is higher than the project average but it still decreases overall coverage? Something doesn't add up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this!
Fixes #1390
Before: slow performance when restoring SBOM layer from previous image (using a daemon and untrusted builder)
Released pack
After:
-launch-cache
makes the build fasterDev pack
Before:
--clear-cache
when passed doesn't actually skip SBOM layer restoration (though the layer is ignored)After:
-skip-layers
completely skips this stepDocumentation
Related
Resolves #1390