Skip to content

Ability to override host for ssh attempts#203

Closed
ytsarev wants to merge 1 commit intotest-kitchen:masterfrom
gooddata:yut-qa-5837
Closed

Ability to override host for ssh attempts#203
ytsarev wants to merge 1 commit intotest-kitchen:masterfrom
gooddata:yut-qa-5837

Conversation

@ytsarev
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ytsarev ytsarev commented Apr 21, 2016

Useful for complex scenarios when socket != host to access containers

Useful for complex scenarios when socket != host to access containers
@ytsarev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

ytsarev commented Apr 21, 2016

My use case:

  • kitchen as a tool itself is containerized
  • docker.sock is mounted to kitchen container
  • kitchen launches containers on host through mounted socket
  • kitchen ssh to instances under test through docker bridge, so I specify
    ssh_host: 172.17.0.1 to point kitchen to docker0 bridge IP address

@clifff
Copy link
Copy Markdown

clifff commented May 23, 2016

👍 I did the same thing so that I could build/test cookbooks from a Docker based CI system.

@ddaymn
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ddaymn commented May 23, 2016

Another use case is the native docker for windows. that client does not listen on localhost but instead uses "docker"

@claudio-viola
Copy link
Copy Markdown

let's merge this please!

@rheostat
Copy link
Copy Markdown

IMHO, it would be better to do this in the SSH transport configuration so as to avoid leaking the details of the kitchen-docker transport being used. See this pull request: https://github.com/test-kitchen/test-kitchen/pull/1138/files

@ytsarev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

ytsarev commented Oct 19, 2016

@rheostat I agree, it does belong to transport.

@mwasserschaff
Copy link
Copy Markdown

I have a similar use case where kitchen runs in a container and cannot ssh into the container created by kitchen-docker. I would be willing to contribute a PR to let kitchen ssh to the container's ip. However there is already the aforementioned PR pending without any activity there, so I am not sure if it is worth the efforts.

@ytsarev ytsarev closed this Mar 19, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants