-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
False positives for strange tag versions #138
Comments
Hi @michbeck100, Thanks for raising this... I have seen this myself and was meant to raise an issue about it! I think the publish date needs to play some part in the sorting process. Its actually an area of version-checker I've not explored just yet. |
Is there any progress on this? |
@michbeck100 nothing as of yet that I'm aware of. I was looking into validating some "latest" images and came across 2 cases where this type of problem is present with other tooling such as Take this example making use of the oras repo tags docker.io/grafana/grafana --exclude-digest-tags --last 9.5.7
oras repo tags docker.io/grafana/grafana --exclude-digest-tags --last 10.1.8 In that case above because of the alphabetic ordering, the second command actually brings back many more results than the first, despite what you would imagine to be less. I'll have to review the code here, but I suspect that version-checker might be doing something similar perhaps? |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had |
I have some strange version checks with popular images and I think there is something missing in the checking algorithm.
For the image
grafana/grafana
version-checker says the latest version is 9799770991, which is obviously correct if you compare just version numbers. But this tag is 8 months old and the actual latest tag currently would be 10.2.2. Another example would bequay.io/jetstack/cert-manager-webhook-arm64
: v1.13.2 vs. 608111629.I am wondering if it would be better to always take the publish date into account when checking versions?
Maybe there is another trick how to avoid these false positives?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: