Skip to content
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

Command describe does not include metadata. #632

Open
etirta opened this issue Feb 2, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Command describe does not include metadata. #632

etirta opened this issue Feb 2, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
carvel accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed enhancement This issue is a feature request good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor

Comments

@etirta
Copy link

etirta commented Feb 2, 2024

What steps did you take:
As per #124 (comment), I expect when we do imgpkg describe -b ..., if the bundle have metadata fields, it it will be printed as written in imgpkg/bundle.yml.

I put some data:

$ cat .imgpkg/bundle.yml 
metadata:
  oslManifestURL: ...

before I do imgpkg push -b ..., but it's not appearing when I do imgpkg describe -b ...:

$ imgpkg describe -b ... --output-type yaml
sha: sha256:bb59ca320f34063174bc9c00bc6f5b795d223c3b9b965851038ce85ebe4eb1d2
content:
...
image: ...
metadata: {}
origin: ...

Succeeded

What happened:
The metadata information is not printed.

What did you expect:
The metadata information is printed.

Anything else you would like to add:
The code seems to never populate this, just put an empty map as place holder.

Can this please be rectified, so I can retrieve this information vie impkg describe -b ...?

If I do imgpkg pull -b ..., the retrieved .imgpkg/bundle.yml has the information, but I don't want to have to pull it as the bundle can be huge, it's just a waste of time and local storage to pull the whole bundle just for me to get the .imgpkg/bundle.yml.

Environment:

  • imgpkg version (use imgpkg --version): 0.34.1
  • Docker registry used (e.g. Docker HUB): Harbor, Artifactory
  • OS (e.g. from /etc/os-release): Various (Ubuntu, CentOS, photon).

Vote on this request

This is an invitation to the community to vote on issues, to help us prioritize our backlog. Use the "smiley face" up to the right of this comment to vote.

👍 "I would like to see this addressed as soon as possible"
👎 "There are other more important things to focus on right now"

We are also happy to receive and review Pull Requests if you want to help working on this issue.

@etirta etirta added bug This issue describes a defect or unexpected behavior carvel triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity labels Feb 2, 2024
@carvel-bot carvel-bot added this to Carvel Feb 2, 2024
@joaopapereira joaopapereira added enhancement This issue is a feature request good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor carvel accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed and removed bug This issue describes a defect or unexpected behavior carvel triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity labels Feb 2, 2024
@joaopapereira
Copy link
Member

I did update some labels on this issue.
We never implemented that part of the UX because there was no one asking for it, but now we do 😄
This is something that it would be great to have when you do a describe.

For this, some exciting work needs to be done because today, we only read the ImagesLock file from the bundle image. To complete this feature, we would need to do something like the following steps:

  1. Read the BundleLock file as well. Take a look at the ImagesLock reader
  2. Have that information be retrievable by implementing maybe something like Bundle.BundleLock() that can use a similar implementation to the retrieval of ImagesLock
  3. Call the above function on the describe API to populate the metadata.

Is this something that you would be interested in contributing?

@renuy renuy moved this to Unprioritized in Carvel Feb 6, 2024
@renuy renuy added priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done. and removed priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done. labels Feb 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
carvel accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed enhancement This issue is a feature request good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor
Projects
Status: Unprioritized
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants