You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Generating an error seems like one potential violation of the
requirement to ignore unknown properties. Compliance testing for the
ignore requirement can cite the MUST I've written here for any
noticeable runtime activity around the unknown property without
needing a error-specific MUST.
We've had the two MUSTs since 27a05de (Add text about extensions,
2016-06-26, #510), citing [1]. I'd asked for consolidated phrasing
then [2,3], but hadn't followed up after the commit landed.
I've left a line mentioning the error activity as non-normative
clarification, but am also happy to drop that line completely.
Also:
* Update the unknown annotation entry to reference the generic
extensibility section, because there's nothing annotation-specific
in how we want runtimes to handle unknown keys.
* Remove "reading or processing" language. This initially landed in
27a05de with a bump in b92cf90 (consistency and style fix,
2017-05-12, #811). Some thought was put into this phrasing there
[4,5] and earlier in #510 [6], but we never got around to dropping
this qualifier. However, the purpose of this qualifier is unclear
to me. What is the point of compliance requirements for runtimes
which don't read or process a configuration?
[1]: opencontainers/image-spec#164
[2]: #510 (comment)
[3]: #510 (comment)
[4]: #811 (comment)
[5]: #811 (comment)
[6]: #510 (comment)
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
0 commit comments