Hey @zong-zhe, I want to write a test for the Go tool I developed that includes a checksum. I plan to first push a test package to a local registry using Docker and then validate my code by updating the sum field in the manifest. However, when writing the test, I'm using "kcl-lang.io/kpm/pkg/mock", which results in an error since it hasn't been released in KPM's latest version. How can I now use the KPM binary to push a KCL package to the local registry and test my code?
kcl-lang/kpm#431 (comment)
Edit: Currently, I am creating another mock in the modules repository to generate the KPM binary and push a test package to the local registry. To do this, I am using the following command to generate the KPM binary: GOBIN=$(pwd)/bin go install kcl-lang.io/cli/cmd/kcl@latest, Is this approach okay?

This PR is ready for review. Feedback and suggestions for improvement are appreciated.
cc: @zong-zhe

Through this code, a new manifest (with a checksum field) and old blobs (config, layers) will be generated and tagged with the corresponding version of the KCL package. However, the old manifest will remain in the registry as a dangling manifest without a tag.

cc @zong-zhe

cc @zong-zhe

@zong-zhe PTAL

Hey @zong-zhe
I am confirming how much work is left for the LFX part. After merging the PR that includes the checksum and integrating the checksum checker in KPM, will these two PRs remain, or are there any more left for the LFX? I want to clarify this so I can divide the tasks and work on them accordingly.

cc @zong-zhe

Any comments on this? Please let me know as the deadlines are approaching quickly.
Also, I need a bit of clarification on the next steps after this, since we can't proceed immediately with the checksum integration PR (kcl-lang/kpm#520) as it requires all the packages to include the checksum field.
@Peefy @zong-zhe

Done, ptal
cc: @zong-zhe

Any comments on this? Please let me know as the deadlines are approaching quickly. Also, I need a bit of clarification on the next steps after this, since we can't proceed immediately with the checksum integration PR (kcl-lang/kpm#520) as it requires all the packages to include the checksum field. @Peefy @zong-zhe

Also could you please clarify this?

Any comments on this? Please let me know as the deadlines are approaching quickly. Also, I need a bit of clarification on the next steps after this, since we can't proceed immediately with the checksum integration PR (kcl-lang/kpm#520) as it requires all the packages to include the checksum field. @Peefy @zong-zhe

Also could you please clarify this?

😄 I will update it later in this PR kcl-lang/kpm#520