Build image settings are not saved in the configuration

Support
1

Hello,

I was trying to change the build image from Ubuntu 14.04 to 20.04
Unfortunately, the changes do not persist in my configuration.
I don’t encounter any errors but it’s like the build settings are not saved properly.

The problem occurs for both kindrobot.org and lanuit.paris.

Can you have a look?

2

Hi @julien_p

Navigate to Site Settings > Build & Deploy > Continuous Deployment > Build Image Selection and choose your build image.
Once set, this is what should get used. If you have environment variables such as NODE_VERSION these can override default build image settings.

3

Thanks for your help.

Site Settings > Build & Deploy > Continuous Deployment > Build Image Selection
It does not work when I change it. I did it several times.

I’ve just tested again. When I change the image to 20.04 and launch the build it says:
The build image for this site uses Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr, which is no longer supported.

When I look back at the build settings, 14.04 is still selected.

4

Hi @julien_p,

Could you send a HAR file recording of you making that change? If not, you could also check if the console is showing some errors while you do it?

Maybe some kind of a browser extension is causing problems, or probably some antivirus?

5

I can export an HAR of the POST issued by the form and save action.
As it will include sessionId, userId etc is it safe to share it here?

I can already say that 200 OK is the result for this POST.

6

Well if it’s already returning a 200, then I don’t see a reason for the HAR file to be analysed.

This is interesting, well could you try updating the build image by API then? I am just trying to figure out if it’s happening in UI only or if we’re having some issues while setting the build image for your website in our backend.

7

I don’t know if/how it can be related but I receive a 404 from another call.

https://api.netlify.com/api/v1/sites/bd07d577-322a-4211-b49e-e20e144e0cc5/pending_permissions

8

Why exactly are you sending a request to pending_permissions?

9

I don’t send this request. When I load the site settings page (ie the web UI) this request is sent and the browser receives a 404.

I’ve tested more administrative features and I think that there’s something fishy with my account globally.

  • I cannot create a personal token to request the API.
    I obtain the following error even when I specify a description for the token.
    “Validation of Doorkeeper::Application failed. summary: The following errors were found: Name can’t be blank”
  • I cannot modify basic data like save “my default team” or my name for example.
  • I don’t even receive the “reset password” email when I request it
10

This is interesting. I’d get this checked with the team and revert.

1 Like
12

Do you have some news? :slight_smile:

13

Hi @julien_p,

I’m so sorry. I wasn’t working past 2 days and the thread was missed among others. I’m checking this now and there doesn’t seem to be anything obvious that stands out.

By any chance, are you using Bitdefender on Windows?

14

I’ve tested yesterday from another computer (without BitDefender) and I was able to apply changes.
I’ve just tested now with my usual computer (with BitDefender) and now the changes are applied as well.
I guess that trying from a different computer unblocked something.
Maybe a specific call that was filtered somehow by BitDefender.
I don’t know exactly how/if this antivirus does proxy HTTP calls but it’s maybe worth digging.

It works now.
Next time I encounter issues I’ll try to disable BitDefender as the first step.
Thanks for your help.

15

Actually, this was an issue a few weeks back - users were unable to do a lot of stuff in the UI when using BitDefender and just like you, once they disabled BitDefender, it worked and now they can leave it on and it still works.

We don’t know what exactly caused this, but the reports had stopped since a few weeks. So, we assumed, it got solved. Maybe, not entirely.

16

I haven’t disabled BitD, I’ve tested from a different computer without it but the result is the same.
I guess “something” was either filtered or removed by BitD.

It’s weird because it does not create any inconsistency:

  • your app does not return any error
  • BitD does not pop up showing a threat

I don’t think they manipulate the content sent on the fly, it should create inconsistency somewhere.

One thing I haven’t had time to test is logout + empty local storage.

17

I’ll tag this thread as resolved.
BitDefender seems guilty and we have a scenario “have you tried to switch it off and on again? (C) - The IT Crowd” that works.

Thanks a lot for your help and support and congratulations for the amazing/robust/scalable/well-documented tools you provide us. :grinning: