GPT header rework - Refacto 2 #234
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #234 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.23% 94.27% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 16 16
Lines 3330 3353 +23
==========================================
+ Hits 3138 3161 +23
Misses 123 123
Partials 69 69
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
521e13e to
a87480a
Compare
4f38b3e to
4f6540b
Compare
a87480a to
6050bf9
Compare
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
We previously sutracted several time some of other structure size/offset. So make sure we get it right. Name a couple of magic numbers. Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
…eRootfsSize Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Split this function in easier to understand bits. Make sure the size declared in the gadget YAML is respected. Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
If the calculated rootfs size is bigger than the requested image size, do not return an error but print a warning. This is consistent with other places where the image-size flag cannot be respected. Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <paul.mars@canonical.com>
2adb98d to
46f65b8
Compare
sil2100
reviewed
Jul 24, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good in general. I just have some questions re: the size vs min-size. What will happen in case where min-size is not defined for the rootfs, but someone sets say size: 1G but then the rootfs itself will be 2G? Should we handle the case of printing out a warning/error for users, that the rootfs size they provided is too small to hold the rootfs (similarly to the image-size case)?
sil2100
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2024
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.
Refactoring of
calculateRootfsSize()and introducing a dedicated function to know if we are dealing with a "rootfs structure" (seeisRootfsStructure()).I also added as a bonus the up-to-date configuration of mkfs for oracular and removed the one for mantic.