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

Add webhook to validate STS configurations at pull request. #247

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

wlynch
Copy link
Collaborator

@wlynch wlynch commented May 6, 2024

Since we don't give any information at request time about why a STS policy is valid or not so that we don't leak details about the policy, this webhook will validate on the repo at pull request / push so the repo authors get feedback on potential config issues.

This changes does not set up GCLB, since this probably needs some more discussion for how we set this up to not conflict with the existing STS service.

Since we don't give any information at request time about why a STS
policy is valid or not so that we don't leak details about the policy,
this webhook will validate on the repo at pull request / push so the
repo authors get feedback on potential config issues.

This changes does not set up GCLB, since this probably needs some more
discussion for how we set this up to not conflict with the existing STS
service.
@mattmoor
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey @wlynch, sorry for neglecting this. I wanted to get an image out for the app, and refactor the TF a bit to make deploying this to dev environments more tractable.

I'm going to TAL at this now, and try to refactor this on top of #284 to get this up in my dev environment 🤞

@mattmoor
Copy link
Collaborator

When I make edits in mattmoor/test-bed I'm seeing check_suite.requested events, which aren't handled. I'm gonna futz around a bit (it looks like we handle this in source enforce) 🤞

ref: mattmoor/test-bed#1

mattmoor added a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2024
This is based on Billy's PR, but I've rebased it on
#284 and expanded it a bunch based
on some experimentation in my dev environment.

Draft until we land the base PR.

Fixes: #247
Fixes: #46

Co-authored-by: wlynch <billy@chainguard.dev>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants