container_push: add doc about no transaction #2060
Merged
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
sluongng
requested review from
smukherj1,
alexeagle,
pcj and
gravypod
as code owners
linzhp
approved these changes
May 5, 2022
|
Can you run buildifier to format the file? |
linzhp
approved these changes
May 25, 2022
|
Can you run buildifier to pass the CI check? |
sluongng
force-pushed
the
patch-1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e76ca24 to
6af72c7
Compare
|
CI now passed but it seems like we run into another issue caused by bazelbuild/bazel#15558 A separate update to gpg key inside WORKSPACE is needed |
|
created #2096 for this |
When use container_push with skip_unchanged_digest, user often rely on the push process to (1) check for existence of the image in the registry and (2) push the image if (1) is false. This leave a time window between (1) and (2) where the image could have been pushed by an external process such as another CI job running in parallel. In such situation, depends on the container registry configuration, the push arrive later can either fail for attempting to override an already pushed image, or it will override the previously pushed image. There is no transactional guarantee that can help coordinate (1) and (2) in the current container registry spec. So let's document this edge case and advise users to work around by using some external distributed lock for running container_push target.
St0rmingBr4in
pushed a commit
to St0rmingBr4in/rules_docker
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2022
When use container_push with skip_unchanged_digest, user often rely on the push process to (1) check for existence of the image in the registry and (2) push the image if (1) is false. This leave a time window between (1) and (2) where the image could have been pushed by an external process such as another CI job running in parallel. In such situation, depends on the container registry configuration, the push arrive later can either fail for attempting to override an already pushed image, or it will override the previously pushed image. There is no transactional guarantee that can help coordinate (1) and (2) in the current container registry spec. So let's document this edge case and advise users to work around by using some external distributed lock for running container_push target.
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.
When use container_push with skip_unchanged_digest,
user often rely on the push process to (1) check for existence
of the image in the registry and (2) push the image if (1) is false.
This leave a time window between (1) and (2) where the image
could have been pushed by an external process such as another CI
job running in parallel. In such situation, depends on the container
registry configuration, the push arrive later can either fail for attempting
to override an already pushed image, or it will override the previously
pushed image.
There is no transactional guarantee that can help coordinate (1) and (2) in
the current container registry spec. So let's document this edge case and
advise users to work around by using some external distributed lock for
running container_push target.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information