Skip to content
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

buildah: support passing build args as Tekton parameter list #1028

Closed

Conversation

msugakov
Copy link
Contributor

@msugakov msugakov commented May 17, 2024

Description

For building ACS containers, we need to pass the same parameter to multiple tasks, one of them is buildah.

While there is BUILD_ARGS_FILE parameter (added in #935), it requires us writing a file in a workspace which, well, requires creating a custom task which will be a pain to get rid of in order to conform with EC.

Here I introduce an additional parameter of Tekton's type list - BUILD_ARGS_LIST.

Notes on testing

I developed it in a toy task and also verified how it runs in a pipeline: stackrox/scanner#1512. (Example runs, if you have access to the ACS tenant.)

A thing I'm concerned about is that now --build-arg-file option will point to a file that's outside of buildah Context directory (/build-args/build-args-unified). I think it should be fine but I was not able to test whether buildah will object (the latest version I get on my machine is 1.28 and it does not have that command-line option).

More broadly, I don't know how to test this change on real pipelines before it's merged so I'll appreciate some guidance. Also, leaving the template text 馃憞 as a reminder.

Before you complete this pull request ...

Look for any open pull requests in the repository with the title "e2e-tests update" and
see if there are recent e2e-tests updates that will be applicable to your change.

Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented May 17, 2024

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@msugakov msugakov marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2024 18:31
@chmeliik
Copy link
Contributor

@msugakov could you check #1023? Do you see some advantages in your approach over it?

@msugakov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #1023

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants