fix: pass correct storage account URL to azure blob client #3387
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #3044
Description
When constructing a blob storage client, kaniko is passing the entire context url (e.g.
https://accname.blob.core.windows.net/bucket/context.tar.gz) where just an account url (https://accname.blob.core.windows.net/) is expected. As a result, thebucket/context.tar.gzpart gets duplicated in the final URL and the blob doesn't get found. This PR solves the issue by extracting just the account url from context url and using that to create an azure storage client.The bug was most likely introduced in 16ed6b2.
I'm aware that this project is pretty much abandoned, but I still have a tiny glimmer of hope that this contribution will be reviewed 😅 .
Submitter Checklist
Azure blob storage isn't covered by unit/integration tests. Fixing that would require more time that I'm willing to spend without any certainty that this PR has a chance to be reviewed and merged.
Reviewer Notes