libpod: fix /etc/hostname with --uts=host #20545
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
LGTM |
test/system/500-networking.bats
Outdated
| skip_if_remote "cannot check 'uname -n' on remote" | ||
| hostname=`uname -n` | ||
| run_podman run --rm --uts=host $IMAGE cat /etc/hostname | ||
| assert "$output" = $hostname "/etc/hostname must contain 'uname -n'" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Failure comment is a little misleading: it's not "contain", it's "be" or "equal".
Also, it's good practice to make failure comments unique. That way a monkey like me, seeing a failure message, can grep for it in the source and find exactly one hit. If there are two hits, monkeys get confused. Perhaps something like this:
... "/etc/hostname with --uts=host"
....
... "/etc/hostname with --net=host and --uts=host"
test/system/500-networking.bats
Outdated
| @@ -911,4 +911,15 @@ EOF | |||
| run_podman network rm $net1 | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| # Issue #20448 - /etc/hostname with --uts=host must show "uname -n" | |||
| @test "podman --uts=host must use 'uname -n' for /etc/hostname" { | |||
| skip_if_remote "cannot check 'uname -n' on remote" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
run_podman info --format '{{.Host.Hostname}}' ?
when --uts=host is provided, the expectation is to use the hostname from the host not the container name. Closes: containers#20448 Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
giuseppe
force-pushed
the
fix-hostname-with-host-uts
branch
from
9bed293 to
b332ca7
Compare
|
@edsantiago thanks for the hints, I think they are worth a re-push |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-ci
bot
added
do-not-merge/hold
|
LGTM2 /unhold |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
github-actions
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
when --uts=host is provided, the expectation is to use the hostname from the host not the container name.
Closes: #20448
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?