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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: fixes #724: add input for --provenance-repository while image verification #736
feat: fixes #724: add input for --provenance-repository while image verification #736
Changes from 2 commits
2c971c1
c475cc5
36bf836
93ddb5d
cf39061
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
nit: we can remove defining these two variables, correct?
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.
done
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.
Let's re-use the
VerifyImage()
. Adding an additional parameter will be a breaking change, and that's why you're using a different unction, correct? Let' s keep it simple and just add a parameter to the options.ProvenanceOpts structure. This should make your changes simpler too.I know retrofitting the provenance repo name in ProvenanceOpts is not as clean as having a dedicated imageOption, but that's a problem with the original API design. We're going to fix this eventually and redesign it with variadic options. @ramonpetgrave64
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.
Sure. I was also leaning toward adding ProvenanceOpts struct but it didn't seem to fit from underlying verification and expected params POV. Since refactoring this later is on the table, i will dump in there and submit new changes!! Thx @laurentsimon
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.
@laurentsimon Added
provenanceRepository
toprovenanceOpts
struct and reusedverifyImage