-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
fix: trivy ci fail #43
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Wrt -upgrade
, if users update their infrastructure first and commit some changes afterwards, does this mean the newly added hooks can make the module versions used during infrastructure update differ from the module versions eventually committed and pushed?
Yes that is true! But I don't know what is the best solution. I made the change to prevent the CI from failing. Maybe we can pin the exact module version instead of giving it a range or have another way to solve it. |
You meant |
Yes! |
Alright. May be pin down the versions then. I did notice every time I run those hooks the HCL lock files and TF docs get updated with another version of aws-provider. |
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.
The devbox hook upgraded dependency modules/providers on every run and didn't honour the lock files. This change stops that and works for me. Would you mind reverting the change related to introducing -upgrade
?
You have added the change to |
The CI shouldn't do that but always honour the lock files, right? The CI may fail only if GitHub changes the CI instance's platform or architecture which has no corresponding hash recorded in the lock file. |
The issue with the trivy seems to be known and there is a workaround for it.