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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fix missing extensions in RHCOS release browser #4009
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
Fix missing extensions in RHCOS release browser #4009
Changes from all commits
bcf0d88
7d06d26
6a47b02
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I agree that I don't think we need these any longer. My only concern is do we somehow want to maintain backward compatibility in case we encounter this (i.e. using current tools to look at an older build).
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.
We would have already noticed this since no extensions were being created at all. I suggest backporting until the point where we stopped generating extensions in meta.json.
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.
Not sure I understand.. but let me ask the question a different way..
If you do bake this PR into a COSA image and then try to parse (i.e. buildfetch and
cosa meta --build=415.92.202501281917-0 --get extensions
) does it barf on you?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.
It's important to use 4.15 in this test because those builds do have the extensions in the meta.json
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.
Yes, it does work:
The only diff for now is that we won't have path, sha256 and rpm-ostree-state, but does work in the same way.
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.
right. I was just worried that the schema would error if there were components in there that it didn't expect.
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.
It works because the schema doesn't disallow additional properties. So the fields are essentially "unregistered". I think instead of this, we should make those properties optional. That way we still have type modelling for them. This could be useful in the future for GC.