-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Improve Verify Error Responses #210
Conversation
This is failing on one of the policies I am using for the GitLab demo. It is also interesting that it fails on a different step each time. I'll add this as a text fixture |
I think i've figured out why this is happening. Bear with me while I try and resolve. |
I think the issue is that the depthened search creates a situation where the |
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.
I think we need to retitle this PR... it's way more than just improving error responses. It's a refactor of a lot of the policy verification workflow.
policy/policy.go
Outdated
} | ||
return resultsByStep, nil |
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.
I was super confused by the return at this point in the code. Would we want to want to continue in case other policy step ArtifactsFrom
clauses fail?
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.
Yeah my apologies on this one, very unclear. I have now changed things so it continues if there are no passing results.
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.
actually gone an backtracked a bit. We want to handle an error in the case of !ok
because that implies that there was a problem fetching a step result (which should definitely be there)
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
deleting previous step results Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
found in the map Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <[email protected]>
896ca44
to
78a4066
Compare
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.
Thanks for all the changes!
No description provided.