rules_docker
rules_docker copied to clipboard
bazelbuild
Add insecure repository support
Local registries, such as microk8s, don't have SSL setup.
This PR just adds the ability to specify to push to an insecure repository. I'm not sure if that's the intended design pattern for this, so I'm open to suggestions!
@fahhem will you finish this PR or can I post mine? For our production, this is a very important feature in rules_docker.
I don't have a publicly-available insecure repository available to add a test against. If you have a better PR, go ahead and post it, I'm not attached to this PR in any way. I was simply sharing what I had to do to get a on-machine docker repository to work.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: fahhem
To complete the pull request process, please assign smukherj1 after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @smukherj1 in a comment when ready.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
I've rebased onto master. I don't know the test infra here, so I added a "test" that is probably wrong. :shrug: if anyone else has a better test or at least a suggestion on how to write one, I'm happy to swap mine out for it.
We are very interested in having this merged in. We are also dependent on a registry which is insecure and are having to write lots of workarounds without this change.
Rebased again. This time the tests are failing for the same reason the master tests are failing (something about an unsupported version of ubuntu? ubuntu2104 vs the mentioned ubuntu1804)
@linzhp any idea on what I should do about the required-but-failing CI step? Or will you be able to merge it anyway?
Same here :D Thanks @uhthomas, I ran gofmt and it had a couple more changes than around my code, but it was all whitespace stuff.
sorry for the noise, github's reviewer UI looks... strange. Anyone consider reviewable.io?
I don't mean to keep pecking either. But my team is also really interested in getting this merged in as well. I know that the CI is still being blocked but it sorta sounds like it just might be some sort of noise and not anything legitimate. Although of course I also have no visibility.
Looks okay, we'll need to understand why CI isn't happy and then we can merge.
All PR's are blocked until CI is fixed? Is anyone at bazel working on fixing the CI?
It's a lot easier to fix buildkite stuff when you have access to the servers, but I can take a stab at it still.
@yc185050 I recommend opening a new issue to request a release. Personally, I'm using master at that merged commit as my company's release while we wait for an official release