ci: correct the docker-host-gc rationale to match the host - #455
Open
smunini wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
The comment justified the anonymous-only volume filter as protecting named volumes that exist today. Verified on the host: there are none — every volume is anonymous, so the narrow filter and `prune -af` would behave identically right now. The filter is still the right choice, but as defence in depth rather than as a fix for live exposure. Say so, so the next reader does not go looking for the named volume this was supposedly protecting.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Comment-only follow-up to #454. No behaviour change.
The comment on the volume sweep justified the anonymous-only filter as protecting named volumes that exist on the host today. Verified read-only:
Nothing. Every volume on the host is anonymous, so right now the narrow filter and
docker volume prune -afwould behave identically.The filter is still the right choice — but as defence in depth, not as a fix for live exposure. The host does run long-lived services alongside CI, and the day one of them gains a named volume, a routine sweep must not silently become data loss. The comment now says that, so the next reader doesn't go hunting for the named volume it was supposedly protecting.