remote API: restore v4 payload in container inspect #22700
Conversation
The v5 API made a breaking change for podman inspect, this means that an old client could not longer parse the result from the new 5.X server. The other way around new client and old server already worked. As it turned out there were several users that run into this, one case to hit this is using an old 4.X podman machine wich now pulls a newer coreos with podman 5.0. But there are also other users running into it. In order to keep the API working we now have a version check and return the old v4 compatible payload so the old remote client can still work against a newer server thus removing any major breaking change for an old client. Fixes containers#22657 Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
github-actions
bot
added
the
kind/api-change
|
Ephemeral COPR build failed. @containers/packit-build please check. |
|
Cockpit tests failed for commit bcb7edf. @martinpitt, @jelly, @mvollmer please check. |
|
LGTM |
|
@mheon PTAL |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit cc79d5e
into
containers:main
|
/cherry-pick v5.1 |
|
@Luap99: new pull request created: #22781 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
The v5 API made a breaking chnage for podman inspect, this means that old client could not longer parse the result from the new 5.X server. The other way around new client and old server were already fixed.
In order to keep the API working we now have a version check and return the old v4 compatiable payload so the old remote client can still work against a newer server.
Fixes #22657
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?