-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 289
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
fixes #13479, 13483, 13504, 13508, 13509, 13524, 13505, 13550 - docker v2 - model/controller/routes/ui updates #5745
Conversation
56fb7bd
to
a71adc0
Compare
image_counts = repositories.archived.docker_type.map do |repo| | ||
repo.docker_manifests.count | ||
end | ||
image_counts.sum |
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.
maybe replace image_counts
with manifest_counts
f6a89ac
to
054517d
Compare
[test] |
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ module Repository | |||
class CloneDockerContent < Actions::Base | |||
def plan(source_repo, target_repo) | |||
sequence do | |||
plan_action(Pulp::Repository::CopyDockerImage, | |||
plan_action(Pulp::Repository::CopyDockerManifest, |
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.
just confirming, copying manifests will copy blobs too?
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.
@beav, good question! They are. I did check the output of the target repo after the copies completed to ensure that the counts for blob/manifest/tag match that of the source repo.
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.
🍹
@bbuckingham this looks good so far. I'm not clear on what |
d910c80
to
a917eb8
Compare
a917eb8
to
3c4b41a
Compare
@beav, Thanks for the review and comments. Regarding |
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ def humanized_details | |||
|
|||
if content_started?(download_details) | |||
if items_total(download_details) > 0 | |||
ret << (_("New images: %{count}.") % {:count => count_summary}) | |||
ret << (_("New manifests: %{count}.") % {:count => count_summary}) |
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.
The pulp code appears to key the download count off of blobs instead of manifests.
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.
Thanks @beav! Updated to reference blobs.
My main concern is making sure the rake task runs OK since I'm not sure of the ordering of the DB migration and the migration rake tasks. APJ aside from that, the blob vs manifest thing on sync status can be addressed as its own issue if needed. |
3ab9b8d
to
bba4e82
Compare
bba4e82
to
e98d30a
Compare
Code changes look good, and tests are 💚! ACK from me |
add_foreign_key :katello_repository_docker_manifests, :katello_repositories, | ||
:column => :repository_id | ||
|
||
add_foreign_key :katello_docker_tags, :katello_docker_manifests, |
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.
Should the down
portion also account for these added indices and foreign keys? Or would those be removed since they're associated with the affected tables?
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.
@komidore64, the deletion of the tables appears to also drop the foreign keys and indexes associated with them.
As discussed on IRC, i'm not positive if this is handling the situation where pulp may either delete a tag or move it to a different manifest that I think may occur. example:
I believe pulp will either remove the old tag or 'move it' to the new manifest B. it looks like when we index we aren't handling this situation (assuming this actually is a situation). I'm okay with it being handled as a followup PR (if it is indeed a problem). If so, please file an issue for it. |
@jlsherrill that seems like a valid situation, like 'latest' may point to Fedora 79 and then Fedora 80 in six months. I'll create a redmine for it to set up the test scenario with a local registry and see what happens. |
1bb6de6
to
895bec1
Compare
ACK from me. looks good. 👍 🍻 |
APJ for me |
[test] |
…or tags This commit contains some initial changes to support the docker v2 model. This includes the introduction of a new model (manifests) and modifications to the existing docker tags model. With docker v2, the docker image model will no longer be needed; however, removal of it and any associations will be done separately from this commit.
…e for tags This commit contains some initial changes to support the docker v2 api controllers. This includes the introduction of a new controller (manifests) and modifications to the existing docker tags controller. With docker v2, the docker image APIs will no longer be needed; however, removal of them and any associations will be done separately from this commit.
…counts Small change to replace image with manifest counts in the Content -> Product UI.
…fest counts Small change to replace image with manifest counts in the Content -> Content Views UI.
This commit contains minor changes to support publishing and promoting content views using Pulp 2.8 with Docker v2.
…t v2 Manifests Update the UI to support manifests and remove images.
…ge Manifests This commit contains changes to convert the current 'Manage Images' functionality to support 'Manage Manifests' for docker v2. This includes the UI, model and action changes.
This commit contains several changes related to removing docker v1 image support. The changes are primarily to schema, model, controllers...etc; however, it includes any image code that remained after migrating katello to docker v2 (pulp2.8).
895bec1
to
fec8d1f
Compare
🏈 🏈 🏈 🏈 |
fixes #13479, 13483, 13504, 13508, 13509, 13524, 13505, 13550 - docker v2 - model/controller/routes/ui updates
NOTE: This PR requires Pulp 2.8
This PR contains several commits containing initial changes support docker v2. Please see commit list for details.
With docker v2, the docker 'image' will no longer be needed; however, removal of it will be handled separately.