Hi @adrianreber. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a cri-o member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

/ok-to-test

Codecov Report

Merging #6181 (39c0ff6) into main (bde6d38) will increase coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is 53.93%.

❗ Current head 39c0ff6 differs from pull request most recent head 0244fee. Consider uploading reports for the commit 0244fee to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6181      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   43.68%   43.87%   +0.18%     
==========================================
  Files         122      122              
  Lines       13666    13730      +64     
==========================================
+ Hits         5970     6024      +54     
- Misses       7049     7051       +2     
- Partials      647      655       +8     

Ready for review. The three CI failures seem to happen everywhere right now and unrelated to this PR.

Besides the three failing CI runs which seems to be expected right now, this is ready for review. PTAL.

I personally would prefer to wait until we standardize in the KEP. WDYT @saschagrunert @mrunalp

Hmm. Okay. There is no immediate plan from my side to add this to a KEP as the image specification would be independent of Kubernetes from my point of view. If a standardization happens it would happen at https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec , but that is a step we did not plan in the next couple of months.

Currently is is an image format used by Podman and specific to Podman and the goal was to bring this to CRI-O.

Not having it in CRI-O is not something we really planed for. Not really sure what to do now. Happy for any additional input.

@haircommander What about just loading checkpoint images as created by Podman and not creating them by CRI-O? Just the changes in the restore code path?

I see both of your points @haircommander @adrianreber. The question is if we value the separation of concerns over usability. Since we just wrap a bunch of buildah APIs in an isolated fashion I'm leaning towards having the feature completely in CRI-O.

If there is no upstream KEP planned for the next couple of months to standardize it via the CRI, then this would be probably a good follow-up in the long term.

@haircommander What about just loading checkpoint images as created by Podman and not creating them by CRI-O? Just the changes in the restore code path?

I think this is a good compromise and works for me. How does that sound @saschagrunert ?

@haircommander What about just loading checkpoint images as created by Podman and not creating them by CRI-O? Just the changes in the restore code path?

I think this is a good compromise and works for me. How does that sound @saschagrunert ?

Sounds good to me!

Okay, let me rework this PR and ping you again. Thanks.

Okay, let's see if CI like the changes.

/retest-required

/test ci-rhel-e2e

Most tests are happy. So it seems to work. I hope this is what we agreed on. I removed the OCI checkpoint image creation from CRI-O but I am able to test the restore path by creating an OCI checkpoint image with CLI buildah in checkpoint.bats.

Is this good to go?

/approve

LGTM, thanks @adrianreber
@saschagrunert @mrunalp PTAL

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: adrianreber, haircommander, saschagrunert

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

/retest-required

/override ci/kata-jenkins

@saschagrunert: Overrode contexts on behalf of saschagrunert: ci/kata-jenkins