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

Change LookupContainer logic to match Docker #2563

Conversation

mheon
Copy link
Member

@mheon mheon commented Mar 6, 2019

When looking up a container or pod by from user input, we handle collisions between names and IDs differently than Docker at present.

In Docker, when there is a container with an ID starting with "c1" and a container named "c1", commands on "c1" will always act on the container named "c1". For the same scenario in podman, we throw an error about name collision.

Change Podman to follow Docker, by returning the named container or pod instead of erroring.

This should also have a positive effect on performance in the lookup-by-full-name case, which no longer needs to fully traverse the list of all pods or containers.

Inspired by a conversation in #2552

When looking up a container or pod by from user input, we handle
collisions between names and IDs differently than Docker at
present.

In Docker, when there is a container with an ID starting with
"c1" and a container named "c1", commands on "c1" will always act
on the container named "c1". For the same scenario in podman, we
throw an error about name collision.

Change Podman to follow Docker, by returning the named container
or pod instead of erroring.

This should also have a positive effect on performance in the
lookup-by-full-name case, which no longer needs to fully traverse
the list of all pods or containers.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mheon

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/L labels Mar 6, 2019
@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Mar 6, 2019

nice, LGTM

@muayyad-alsadi
Copy link
Contributor

Nice. Specific should always take priority on guess or less specific (like short-hand id prefix matching with collisions possibility)

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@giuseppe
Copy link
Member

giuseppe commented Mar 7, 2019

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 7, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit ea031be into containers:master Mar 7, 2019
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 27, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 27, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants