Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink commented Jan 18, 2021

We normally skip settings restore when restoring into an already configured instance. This is to not overwrite / reset settings
unexpectedly. This is fine for all settings, except for the password pepper.

The password pepper is associated with the MySQL data and GitHub passwords used there, so it needs to be restored always together with the MySQL restore.

This moves the pepper restore to always be done together with the MySQL restore. We always here update the variable used here since the restore-secret function expects $GHE_RESTORE_SNAPSHOT_PATH to be set. We had a differently named variable in the MySQL restore with the same value, so that variable was renamed to match the restore-secret expectation so it can find the backed up password pepper.

We normally skip settings restore when restoring into an already
configured instance. This is to not overwrite / reset settings
unexpectedly. This is fine for all settings, except for the password
pepper.

The password pepper is associated with the MySQL data and GitHub
passwords used there, so it needs to be restored always together with
the MySQL restore.

This moves the pepper restore to always be done together with the MySQL
restore. We always here update the variable used here since the
`restore-secret` function expects $GHE_RESTORE_SNAPSHOT_PATH to be set.
We had a differently named variable in the MySQL restore with the same
value, so that variable was renamed to match the `restore-secret`
expectation so it can find the backed up password pepper.
@dbussink dbussink added the bug label Jan 18, 2021
@dbussink dbussink merged commit 98834bf into master Jan 18, 2021
@dbussink dbussink deleted the dbussink/fix-pepper-restore branch January 18, 2021 13:18
@amulyaraja
Copy link

nice, is there a backport for this coming soon @dbussink?

@dbussink
Copy link
Contributor Author

nice, is there a backport for this coming soon @dbussink?

@amulyaraja I don't think a backport is needed here? 3.0.0 will afaik be tagged from master?

@jianghao0718
Copy link
Contributor

no backport is needed. We will release from master.

@DangMH DangMH mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2021
timreimherr added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2023
…imherr/build-and-release-edit

Backport 679 for 3.7: Remove file rename step in build-and-release workflow
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants