Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Encourage the use of root_path in production to ensure single deployment #1712
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Encourage the use of root_path in production to ensure single deployment #1712
Changes from 2 commits
2dad625
595beed
821239e
dc63c7c
5436123
3f45f71
6ea5306
c5fa11c
293d780
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this is breaking IFF:
run_as
set (i.e. it runs as self)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We previously showed an error under those conditions (
'run_as' must be set
). We now show an error aboutroot_path
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you think we should continue to comment setting
run_as
, even ifroot_path
is configured?If a user goes in and looks at defaults and configures it to
~/some/path
, it'll still have multiple deployments if multiple people deploy it, even though the warning is silenced.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do think it's a good practice to set
run_as
despite its limitations and it seems okay to set it in the templates. Providing a warning when you only setrun_as
and don't setroot_path
seems like a sweet spot to me. Providing an error would be a breaking change and doesn't really seem warranted.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you think we should de-emphasize
run_as
in general?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
run_as
still seems helpful to me and it will become much more usable once we add support for it in pipelines.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of keeping these around here, could you break out a field on the bundle struct where we can keep a snapshot of the selected target? Then you can interrogate it and there's no risk of other mutators changing it after selection. The targets in the configuration have no significance beyond this point.
E.g.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't it cleaner to just remove the side effect from
select_target
? Instead of just recording which target is selected, the mutator removes fields, which is a bit hard to discover and not really motivated in the code. It's a bit surprising if you want to build a new mutator that consumes this value. Based on your comments, the motivation is to clean things up in order for consumption by summary/validate; shouldn't we just make that a separate step?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What I see as a risk is that keeping them around means another location that new mutators can go and look at, even though everything under targets no longer has any effect. Variable interpolation won't run either, so values under it shouldn't be used.
I see how this is most convenient though. @andrewnester What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's just that over the past year I ran into this problem twice. You need to use a step through debugger to find where this property is secretly deleted. And the code that deletes it includes no rationale and is just meant to select the default target.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, I don't want to leave this PR open just because we can't make a decision here. I added 6ea5306 which merges the cleanup behavior back into SelectTarget and adds a few comments about the behavior for maintainers.