Skip to content

Conversation

@grokspawn
Copy link
Contributor

Assisted-By: Claude

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /docs
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
Assisted-By: Claude
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 5, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign pedjak for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.47%. Comparing base (a40ca89) to head (b9ccab4).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1905      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   57.44%   57.47%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         139      139              
  Lines       13323    13334      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits         7653     7664      +11     
  Misses       4488     4488              
  Partials     1182     1182              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

}
})},
},
},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add here a test to ensure that we still allowing usage of tags

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we allow tags, since we have to pin as digests in catalogs.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OLM supports this upstream—it's not an OLM limitation. What you’re describing is a downstream requirement specific to Red Hat OCP, mainly because of disconnected environment constraints. OLM can work with tags.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 on a test showing that tags work. I think it is also valid to have a pullspec that looks like this:

quay.io/example-org/example-repo:v1.2.3@sha256:<digest>

In this case, my understanding is that the tag becomes informational/ignored and the digest is what is used.

}

// validateImagePullSpec checks that a non-empty image pull spec is valid
// using github.com/distribution/reference.ParseNormalizedNamed.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we link to the go docs since the above 404's?

Suggested change
// using github.com/distribution/reference.ParseNormalizedNamed.
// using https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/distribution/reference#ParseNormalizedNamed

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest using the parsers from container-lib/image since that's the underlying library that OPM itself uses by default and that most of the rest of the typical OLM ecosystem uses (e.g. skopeo and cri-o).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants