Skip to content

ci: fix attest job for multi-arch rock, drop SBOM/scan - #85

Open
tonyandrewmeyer wants to merge 7 commits into
canonical:masterfrom
tonyandrewmeyer:test-attest-fix
Open

ci: fix attest job for multi-arch rock, drop SBOM/scan#85
tonyandrewmeyer wants to merge 7 commits into
canonical:masterfrom
tonyandrewmeyer:test-attest-fix

Conversation

@tonyandrewmeyer

@tonyandrewmeyer tonyandrewmeyer commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The attest-and-scan job was failing because syft can't parse a multi-arch OCI archive (unexpected media type application/vnd.oci.image.index.v1+json). I realised (belatedly, sorry) I could test this in my fork (passing example) so have reworked it there.

One significant change: it turns out that even though our security team recommend grype, it doesn't understand bare rocks. I was able to work around that for getting the right base, but there are still many false positives because it doesn't understand the Python packages (plus some actual Go issues that should be fixed with some dependency bumps). It seems like the tool is just not usable with a chiselled rock, so I've dropped the scanning part entirely. It isn't strictly needed here since this is a demo image rather than a real product, so we'll just rely on whatever the rock team does. Without the scan, the syft SBOM doesn't provide much value.

I've kept the build provenance attestsrion, though.

Changes:

  • Matrix over arch and download the per-arch .rock artifact via glob + merge-multiple: true, resolving the filename dynamically. This fixes the main blocking issue.
  • Drop syft SBOM generation, SBOM attestation, and grype scan.
  • Rename job attest-and-scanattest; update upload-ghcr needs accordingly.

I've also dropped the secrets: source-github-token block. The repo is public, so as far as I can tell the reusable build workflow doesn't need REPO_CLONER_TOKEN for cloning. I had to do this to have it work in my fork, but it seems like it's not needed in canonical either. Let me know if I missed something here and I can restore it.

@tonyandrewmeyer
tonyandrewmeyer marked this pull request as ready for review July 22, 2026 08:14
@tonyandrewmeyer
tonyandrewmeyer requested a review from dwilding July 22, 2026 08:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant