Refactor vendoring to allow validating vendoring is reproducible #7285
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Helps ensure that unsuspecting diffs to the vendored code arent accidentally introduced
segiddins
force-pushed
the
segiddins/verify-vendored-code
branch
from
a698cb0
to
7c425d4
Compare
deivid-rodriguez
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2023
deivid-rodriguez
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2023
Refactor vendoring to allow validating vendoring is reproducible (cherry picked from commit 3f249dd)
matzbot
pushed a commit
to ruby/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2023
Refactor vendoring to allow validating vendoring is reproducible Helps ensure that unsuspecting diffs to the vendored code arent accidentally introduced
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Helps ensure that unsuspecting diffs to the vendored code arent accidentally introduced
What was the end-user or developer problem that led to this PR?
Changes to vendored code are hard to review, and it would be easy for a change to be slipped in that isn't actually from upstream. I deem this to be an attack vector, and one that we don't need to have.
What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
Make the vendoring process idempotent, so we can (in CI) check that re-vendoring from upstream does not introduce any diffs.
As a part of that, use bundler to do the fetching & unpacking, so we can piggy-back off of its caching & parallel installation & checksum validation.
Make sure the following tasks are checked