Skip to content

ActorTemplate's container should not use name "pause" #1495

Closed

Description

@HavenXia

Because ateom creates a container named "pause" for every actor. We should add validation for that.

Activity

  1. juli4n commented on Sep 7, 2026

    @juli4n
    Collaborator

    It doesn't sound right to carve out names from the set of valid IDs (i.e. k8s-short-names). It's not just arbitrary to say all k8s-short-names are allowed, except "pause", it's also impossible to evolve as any other restriction will be backward incompatible.

    Can we change the implementation of atelet / ateom so that we don't need to use that ID? (e.g. call the container "_pause" within the OCI spec).

    Benjamin Elder (@BenTheElder)

  2. HavenXia commented on Sep 8, 2026

    @HavenXia
    MemberAuthor

    It doesn't sound right to carve out names from the set of valid IDs (i.e. k8s-short-names). It's not just arbitrary to say all k8s-short-names are allowed, except "pause", it's also impossible to evolve as any other restriction will be backward incompatible.

    Can we change the implementation of atelet / ateom so that we don't need to use that ID? (e.g. call the container "_pause" within the OCI spec).

    [Benjamin Elder (Benjamin Elder (@BenTheElder))](https://github.com/BenTheElder)

    I agree with this. Will update PR if Benjamin Elder (@BenTheElder) 's ok with it too.

  3. BenTheElder commented on Sep 8, 2026

    @BenTheElder
    Collaborator

    I agree. I left a comment like this on the PR.

  4. added a commit that references this issue on Sep 9, 2026
    060b0d8
  5. juli4n commented on Oct 2, 2026

    @juli4n
    Collaborator

    Haven Xia (@HavenXia) looking at the code, I don't think this was fixed? Atelet seems to still have a validation that makes Run/Restore request fail if a container is named pause. I found this while reviewing #1997 which adds DV validations to this API.

    shrutiyam-glitch FYI

  6. HavenXia commented on Oct 5, 2026

    @HavenXia
    MemberAuthor

    Thanks for notifying and seems #1997 has dropped the refusal in atelet side, I will leave this open so shrutiyam-glitch you can close this with #1997.

  7. HavenXia commented on Oct 15, 2026

    @HavenXia
    MemberAuthor

    #1997 fixed this

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions