Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 16.66667% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.20%. Comparing base (65698c5) to head (0c101c9).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #825      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.53%   73.20%   -0.34%     
==========================================
  Files          31       31              
  Lines        3140     3157      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits         2309     2311       +2     
- Misses        695      710      +15     
  Partials      136      136              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Thank you, I really do like this PR and the intent behind it.

However, I do have slight concerns about maintainability here. To maintain this, one needs to have an aws account and ECR set up. How would this be integrated into a potential end-to-end test? Who will be the one to take care of issues and bugs reported to this particular functionality?

Also, when we start incorporating proprietary authentication for vendor no. 1, then we're not far away from requests to incorporating similar mechanisms for vendor no. 2, vendor no. 3 and so on. This would multiply the impact described in the previous paragraph.

All that being said, please don't close or abandon this PR. I just want to raise these concerns to open up the discussion. Thank you!

About E2E test, they can be automated, of course you will need some infrastructure , or tools like localstack which emulate AWS, for other cloud platforms, no idea ,other option is to use mocked services,sadly I'm not that knowledged on testing in golang to implement , but is doable.
Now the big question is , no new features because we don't have the infra for testing, put those features as second class citizens.

Now in the case of new ones, you can just say 'Sure, provide a PR' , but I think is a natural path for people wanting to use this with less complications as possible, because, I could use the 'ext:/scripts/aws.sh' , for example, and just use that, but then again I need to modify the base image or mount it, but that might need aws cli, python and its depedencies.
Now another approach is to put those 'auth' as 'external' and provide a way to compile them apart, and instead of use 'aws' for the credentials, just use 'ext:/local/aws-ecr-auth', so users , like me, don't need to add python, and aws cli, and all it's dependencies to the base image.

Again, just thinking out loud looking to expand the discussion!