Personal-files request for 'gimp'

store-requests privileged-interfaces
1

To make the review of your request easier, please use the following template to provide all the required details and also include any other information that may be relevant.

(WARNING: I am just opening this report in advance to accelerate the voting but none of our tracks on gimp snap have such interface enabled yet. If approved, please wait until GIMP 3.2 release).

1 Like
2

This request has been added to the queue for review by the @reviewers team.

3

+1 from me (#voteFor), gimp is the clear owner of this path so having write access via personal-files seems entirely appropriate.

4

+1 from me too, this is a common use case that should be supported.

5

Hello! This is a +1 (#voteFor) from me as well for personal-files write access to the $HOME/.config/GIMP directory, as the ownership expectations for the folder is clear.

6

Hello @GIMP!

That’s a +1 (#voteFor) from my side too, I ‘ll proceed with granting the requested interface.

Edit: Just saw your warning note, please update this thread when GIMP 3.2 is released, so we can grant the interface in time! (#askForInfo)

7

Voting period has ended. This request is approved with 2 votes for and 0 votes against.

8

Hi. I see this was approved :grin:. We are trying to publish GIMP 3.2 RC3 (which use personal-files interface) but we get (https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/jobs/6229387):

Status: will need manual review
Issues while processing snap:
- human review required due to 'allow-installation' constraint (plug-names)
9

Hey @GIMP!

I just granted the interface, this is now live!

1 Like
10

One question: does snapcraft upload CLI tool return a different return value from a real error status and a “need manual review” status?

A problem we saw is that this status broke our pipeline (as it obviously didn’t return 0; though the pipeline doesn’t say what it returned), only uploaded one of the 2 archs then stopped. The other problem is that when the pipeline ends in error, a few other steps in the release procedure are more annoying (because Gitlab won’t generate some “easy” redirection URLs — which our scripts use — for failed pipelines).

We still want to see real failures, but “need manual review” is not actually a failure, right? We just wait a bit to get the manual validation. So I’d like for our pipeline to still pass as success in this “manual review” case, which is why I hope that we can react conditionally on the return value.

P.S.: the alternative could be to process the stdout/stderr strings, but this is not always ideal, especially as such strings are not always stable so this makes for flimsy error handling.

11

@mr_cal do you have a clue?

12

Snapcraft doesn’t differentiate between a real error and a “needs manual review” response.

I’m seeing that the store does respond with a status like ready_to_release or need_manual_review, so Snapcraft could handle these programatically. I don’t see this documented, so I’d need to ask the store team what the possible values are.

I think Snapcraft should have some solution for this. If you make an issue here, we can discuss it further.

13

Done: Differentiate “need manual review” status in "snapcraft upload" from errors · Issue #6076 · canonical/snapcraft · GitHub

Thanks.

2 Likes
14

Hi all!

We are planning on releasing GIMP 3.2.0 (stable) tomorrow, if all goes fine! So far, we are guessing that this first release will trigger the same “will need manual review” status and therefore will break our pipeline with our Snap publication job. At least, we assume that the approval has only been granted to the preview channel, but not the latest one. :person_shrugging:

Would it be possible to give in advance the same interface-granting that you gave to preview, to the latest channel as well?

This would be helpful as these pipeline breakage are annoying and further break other automatic scripts down the line. In the future, when our feature request wil have been implemented, it won’t be a problem anymore. But in the meantime, it’s a bit annoying. :sweat_smile:

Thanks!

15

Hello @GIMP!

Sorry for missing the initial reply, but I see that 3.2 has been released (hopefully without issue)! To answer the question belatedly, interfaces are granted on a per-snap basis and are not restricted to channels, so (hopefully) you will only run into the described pipeline issues when adding a new super-privileged interface or a new dbus interface.

16

Indeed, GIMP 3.2.0 was released without the “will need manual review” issue in the end! \o/

In fact, we even already released our first bugfix version (GIMP 3.2.2) since. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Good to know these interfaces are on a per-snap and not per-channel bais. :slight_smile:

1 Like