check local image matches the required platform#10546
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nicolas De Loof <[email protected]>
ndeloof
requested review from
a team,
StefanScherer,
glours,
laurazard,
milas,
nicksieger and
ulyssessouza
and removed request for
a team
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v2 #10546 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 59.81% 59.67% -0.14%
==========================================
Files 107 107
Lines 9294 9312 +18
==========================================
- Hits 5559 5557 -2
- Misses 3166 3185 +19
- Partials 569 570 +1
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
glours
left a comment
glours
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks Good To Me #sorryPrivateJoke
|
@ndeloof right, this is definitely better than what we had before. I wonder though if we should align with engine behaviour: $ docker pull --platform=linux/arm64 alpine:3.17
3.17: Pulling from library/alpine
c41833b44d91: Already exists
Digest: sha256:124c7d2707904eea7431fffe91522a01e5a861a624ee31d03372cc1d138a3126
Status: Downloaded newer image for alpine:3.17
docker.io/library/alpine:3.1
$ docker run --platform=linux/amd64 --rm -it alpine:3.17 sh
Unable to find image 'alpine:3.17' locally
3.17: Pulling from library/alpine
f56be85fc22e: Pull complete
Digest: sha256:124c7d2707904eea7431fffe91522a01e5a861a624ee31d03372cc1d138a3126
Status: Downloaded newer image for alpine:3.17
/ # exit
$ docker images
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
alpine 3.17 9ed4aefc74f6 5 weeks ago 7.05MB
alpine <none> 51e60588ff2c 5 weeks ago 7.46M
$ docker inspect alpine:3.17
[
{
"Id": "sha256:9ed4aefc74f6792b5a804d1d146fe4b4a2299147b0f50eaf2b08435d7b38c27e",
[...],
"RepoTags": [
"alpine:3.17"
],
"RepoDigests": [],
"Architecture": "amd64",
[...],
}
]
$ docker inspect 51e60588ff2c
[
{
"Id": "sha256:51e60588ff2cd9f45792b23de89bfface0a7fbd711d17c5f5ce900a4f6b16260",
[...],
"RepoTags": [],
"RepoDigests": [
"alpine@sha256:124c7d2707904eea7431fffe91522a01e5a861a624ee31d03372cc1d138a3126
],
"Architecture": "arm64",
"Variant": "v8",
[...],
}
] |
|
I don't strictly have the same behavior, I get a WARNING: Anyway we probably can do something comparable, just considering image is missing and get it pulled. Let me give this a try |
|
I ran some tests, we can support a comparable workflow, while this requires some additional changes so that we don't track required images by tag, but need to add platforms so we can handle some funky compose file like this one: services:
hello:
image: alpine:3.17
platform: linux/arm64
toto:
image: alpine:3.17
platform: linux/amd64if you don't mind, I'll keep this for future improvement, so that we - at least - get a correct error message reported to the user when we don't get the expected platform for requested image. |
|
Sounds good! I made that suggestion but more for discussion, it's possible that we might not even want to do it (and I didn't consider Compose files like that). This is still better than the previous state. |
3 participants
What I did
Added a verification that a local image found for service matches the configured platform. Otherwise report error so user can pull the desired image. Please note we can't just force pull as docker engine image store (until configured to run in "containerd image store" mode with Docker Desktop) only stores a single image for a tag.
Related issue
fixes #9740
(not mandatory) A picture of a cute animal, if possible in relation to what you did