Closed
Conversation
Member
Author
|
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Problem
I need to use
rules_minidockwith a registry where theservicereturned in the authentication challenge is not the registry base name, but rather a logical service name "Authentication". The header returned by the registry is like:I want to provide an authentication helper script to respond to this challenge, but it's never picked up by
puller_app, etc. because the current logic always does matching based on the bearerservice; so I believe there's an assumption here thatservicewill be the registry base name (such asregistry.example.com) but this is not necessarily true.Solution
We maintain the current matching logic, but if no matching authentication helper is found based on
service, we try to match based on theregistryparameter sent topuller_apporpusher_app.Note
Content here is exactly the same as #479 but looks like CI doesn't get triggered for forks, so had to recreate as a branch on the main repo.