Add tests for imagetools inspect#2298
Conversation
LaurentGoderre
force-pushed
the
imagetools-inspect-tests
branch
4 times, most recently
from
c654bcf to
fcc3041
Compare
LaurentGoderre
force-pushed
the
imagetools-inspect-tests
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2e628dd to
638ec6c
Compare
LaurentGoderre
force-pushed
the
imagetools-inspect-tests
branch
from
638ec6c to
f96c50c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Laurent Goderre <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Goderre <[email protected]>
LaurentGoderre
force-pushed
the
imagetools-inspect-tests
branch
from
f96c50c to
fa006f6
Compare
tonistiigi
left a comment
tonistiigi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can merge this but overall I think it is less likely that a breakage will happen in one of these private helper functions that is unit tested and more likely that something breaks in handling inspect --format input in relation to attestations and goes unnoticed. Also, as these are private functions, they don't have a strict contract and could be modified freely (what likely requires test modification as well).
For the integration tests that check the feature, these are atm in https://github.com/docker/buildx/blob/v0.13/tests/imagetools.go . As this PR also tests images that can't be built with buildx, it makes it trickier as for that the integration test would need to manually push such an image from raw manifest objects.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Goderre <[email protected]>
LaurentGoderre
force-pushed
the
imagetools-inspect-tests
branch
from
fa006f6 to
abff444
Compare
|
@tonistiigi I kept the test pretty high level so they shouldn't be high maintenance. Our team is also proposing a new way to do signature of SBOM so having these tests will be helpful down the line |
3 participants
No description provided.