-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 686
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
Clarify mediaType and artifactType syntax #1182
Open
sudo-bmitch
wants to merge
1
commit into
opencontainers:main
Choose a base branch
from
sudo-bmitch:pr-media-type
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+59
−17
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Moving this to a common section seems good (instead of repeating it over and over again), but I'm not convinced we have a good reason to limit further than what the RFC specifies? To put that another way, what do we gain from adding extra restrictions on top of the RFC itself?
We've previously discussed (and don't explicitly say anything about) case sensitivity too, as another example: https://oci.dag.dev/?image=tianon/test:sPoNgEbOb
I don't think this is great, but the spec has historically pointed to the RFC as-is. I think it's totally fair for us to say our media types/spec-specified objects shouldn't have parameters, but something about telling other artifact authors they also cannot do so feels off.
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.
We were pointing directly to section 4.2, so there's a case to be made by some implementations that we had already excluded parameters that were defined in 4.3 (ECR rejects these manifests today). And
schema/defs-descriptor.json
almost defined this as a restriction if there wasn't a bug in the regexp.A big fear for allowing this for fields like artifactType includes the referrers query with an artifactType filter. Should that allow parameters in the query, or should all responses with any parameter be returned if no parameter is included? That part of the spec gets a bit undefined without this limit.