Skip to content
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

PAT-590 incorrect docker image content #2376

Conversation

@dysinger
Copy link
Contributor

@dysinger dysinger commented Jul 15, 2016

Fixes a bug where the user executes

stack image container --image image9

where the stack.yaml has multiple docker image definitions. The code
was staging all of them but then creating an image by selecting the base
image (correct) along with the contents of folder "0" (incorrect)

Solution is to only stage the image(s) that we want to build (using the
same image name fitering that we have in our function to build the
image(s).

Haskell does not protect you from logic fails :D

Fixes a bug where the user executes

`stack image container --image image9`

where the stack.yaml has multiple docker image definitions.  The code
was staging all of them but then creating an image by selecting the base
image (correct) along with the contents of folder "0" (incorrect)

Solution is to only stage the image(s) that we want to build (using the
same image name fitering that we have in our function to build the
image(s).

Haskell does not protect you from logic fails :D
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

@snoyberg snoyberg commented Jul 15, 2016

LGTM

@borsboom borsboom merged commit 65ee679 into stable Jul 15, 2016
3 of 4 checks passed
3 of 4 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build failed
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@borsboom borsboom deleted the PAT-590-stack-image-container-with-image-option-does-not-behave-correctly branch Jul 15, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants