| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The errcheck linter makes sure that errors are always check and not
ignored by accident. It spotted a lot of unchecked errors, mostly in the
tests but also some real problem in the code.
Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Following commit ensures that podman generates a valid event on `podman
container rename` where event specifies that it is a rename event and
container name swtichted to the latest name.
Signed-off-by: Aditya R <arajan@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Automated for .go files via gomove [1]:
`gomove github.com/containers/podman/v3 github.com/containers/podman/v4`
Remaining files via vgrep [2]:
`vgrep github.com/containers/podman/v3`
[1] https://github.com/KSubedi/gomove
[2] https://github.com/vrothberg/vgrep
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <rothberg@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As we were not updating the pod ID bucket, removing a pod with
containers still in it (including the infra container, which will
always suffer from this) will not properly update the name
registry to remove the name of any renamed containers. This
patch ensures that does not happen - all containers will be fully
removed, even if renamed.
Fixes #11750
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
e2e test failures are rife with messages like:
Expected 1 to equal 0
These make me cry. They're anti-helpful, requiring the reader
to dive into the source code to figure out what those numbers
mean.
Solution: Go tests have a '.Should(Exit(NNN))' mechanism. I
don't know if it spits out a better diagnostic (I have no way
to run e2e tests on my laptop), but I have to fantasize that
it will, and given the state of our flakes I assume that at
least one test will fail and give me the opportunity to see
what the error message looks like.
THIS IS NOT REVIEWABLE CODE. There is no way for a human
to review it. Don't bother. Maybe look at a few random
ones for sanity. If you want to really review, here is
a reproducer of what I did:
cd test/e2e
! positive assertions. The second is the same as the first,
! with the addition of (unnecessary) parentheses because
! some invocations were written that way. The third is BeZero().
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(\(Equal\((\d+)\)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit(0))/' *_test.go
! Same as above, but handles three non-numeric exit codes
! in run_exit_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Equal\((\S+)\)\)/Expect($1).Should(Exit($2))/' *_test.go
! negative assertions. Difference is the spelling of 'To(Not)',
! 'ToNot', and 'NotTo'. I assume those are all the same.
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.To\(Not\(Equal\((0)\)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.NotTo\(Equal\((0)\)\)/Expect($1).To(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
! negative, old use of BeZero()
perl -pi -e 's/Expect\((\S+)\.ExitCode\(\)\)\.ToNot\(BeZero\(\)\)/Expect($1).Should(ExitWithError())/' *_test.go
Run those on a clean copy of main branch (at the same branch
point as my PR, of course), then diff against a checked-out
copy of my PR. There should be no differences. Then all you
have to review is that my replacements above are sane.
UPDATE: nope, that's not enough, you also need to add gomega/gexec
to the files that don't have it:
perl -pi -e '$_ .= "$1/gexec\"\n" if m!^(.*/onsi/gomega)"!' $(grep -L gomega/gexec $(git log -1 --stat | awk '$1 ~ /test\/e2e\// { print $1}'))
UPDATE 2: hand-edit run_volume_test.go
UPDATE 3: sigh, add WaitWithDefaultTimeout() to a couple of places
UPDATE 4: skip a test due to bug #10935 (race condition)
Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <santiago@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Move the core of renaming logic into the DB. This guarantees a
lot more atomicity than we have right now (our current solution,
removing the container from the DB and re-creating it, is *VERY*
not atomic and prone to leaving a corrupted state behind if
things go wrong. Moving things into the DB allows us to remove
most, but not all, of this - there's still a potential scenario
where the c/storage rename fails but the Podman rename succeeds,
and we end up with a mismatched state.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We missed bumping the go module, so let's do it now :)
* Automated go code with github.com/sirkon/go-imports-rename
* Manually via `vgrep podman/v2` the rest
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <rothberg@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Add bindings and podman-remote support for container rename.
Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <paul.holzinger@web.de>
|
|
|
Basic theory: We remove the container, but *only from the DB*.
We leave it in c/storage, we leave the lock allocated, we leave
it running (if it is). Then we create an identical container with
an altered name, and add that back to the database. Theoretically
we now have a renamed container.
The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't just apply to
rename - we can use this to make *any* configuration change to a
container that does not alter its container ID.
Potential problems are numerous. This process is *THOROUGHLY*
non-atomic at present - if you `kill -9` Podman mid-rename things
will be in a bad place, for example. Also, we can't rename
containers that can't be removed normally - IE, containers with
dependencies (pod infra containers, for example).
The largest potential improvement will be to move the majority of
the work into the DB, with a `RecreateContainer()` method - that
will add atomicity, and let us remove the container without
worrying about depencies and similar issues.
Potential problems: long-running processes that edit the DB and
may have an older version of the configuration around. Most
notable example is `podman run --rm` - the removal command needed
to be manually edited to avoid this one. This begins to get at
the heart of me not wanting to do this in the first place...
This provides CLI and API implementations for frontend, but no
tunnel implementation. It will be added in a future release (just
held back for time now - we need this in 3.0 and are running low
on time).
This is honestly kind of horrifying, but I think it will work.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <mheon@redhat.com>
|
