-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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: support containerd subject annotations #173
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #173 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.58% 69.71% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 44 44
Lines 2528 2533 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 1759 1766 +7
+ Misses 477 476 -1
+ Partials 292 291 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
c1cef15
to
1e61417
Compare
1e61417
to
fd4e741
Compare
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.
Lgtm
44c1356
to
0378c94
Compare
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.
LGTM
This LGTM, but I do wonder if we should really just have the name be a parameter that can be supplied to the verify operation if the input is an OCI layout. As the index.json isn't part of the image I don't know how much sense it makes to verify fields in there... Maybe something to consider if we ever need to add another annotation |
Summary
Note: not sure where we stand on importing constants vs. hardcoding the strings, this imports but I can change it to just hardcode if we decided that way