Implemented the SizeRw field in the InspectContainerResponse class. - #2216
Merged
eddumelendez merged 5 commits intoOct 26, 2023
Merged
Implemented the SizeRw field in the InspectContainerResponse class.#2216eddumelendez merged 5 commits into
eddumelendez merged 5 commits into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Sorry, something went wrong.
eddumelendez
approved these changes
Oct 26, 2023
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
|
Thanks for your contribution, @LarsSven ! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR implements the SizeRw field that is missing from the docker inspect response. This field is present in the response of docker list, but is not present in docker inspect.
One other concern I had while writing this PR is that my SizeRw deliberately mirrors SizeRootFs, but SizeRootFs is implemented as an integer in the inspect command. I suspect they should be longs instead to avoid overflows. Within the list command, they are implemented as longs.