Skip to content
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

Remove FLOWDB_SERVICES env var #831

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 22, 2019
Merged

Conversation

maxalbert
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #827

I have:

  • Formatted any Python files with black
  • Brought the branch up to date with master
  • Added any relevant Github labels
  • Added tests for any new additions
  • Added or updated any relevant documentation
  • Added an Architectural Decision Record (ADR), if appropriate
  • Added an MPLv2 License Header if appropriate
  • Updated the Changelog

Description

This PR removes the FLOWDB_SERVICES env var from the toplevel Makefile, so that now DOCKER_SERVICES is the only variable that controls which services are spun up upon make up.

This isn't the only possible solution. I actually like @greenape's suggestions for an alternative tweak. The reason why I chose to remove this env var is because now that we also have flowetl and the worked_examples in the DOCKER_SERVICES there are even more possible combinations that the user may want (previously it was basically just about which version of flowdb to cheose), so it feels clunky and somewhat error-prone to support the different use cases via different env vars in the Makefile. The cleaner solution seems to me to only have DOCKER_SERVICES in the Makefile, and if we want more flexibility we should be moving towards proper build and startup scripts (which is probably a good idea anyway, because I think we're duplicating this functionality in a few places in various build scripts).

Anyway, just my current view on it. Happy to discuss, and also to change this PR if a different solution is more desirable.

@maxalbert maxalbert added deployment FlowMachine Issues related to FlowMachine labels May 21, 2019
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #831 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #831   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.14%   93.14%           
=======================================
  Files         130      130           
  Lines        6552     6552           
  Branches      695      695           
=======================================
  Hits         6103     6103           
  Misses        330      330           
  Partials      119      119
Flag Coverage Δ
#flowapi_unit_tests 79.84% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowauth_unit_tests 93.97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowclient_unit_tests 83.57% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowkit_jwt_generator_unit_tests 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowmachine_unit_tests 91.11% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#integration_tests 59.92% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bc32e37...f995465. Read the comment docs.

1 similar comment
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #831 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #831   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.14%   93.14%           
=======================================
  Files         130      130           
  Lines        6552     6552           
  Branches      695      695           
=======================================
  Hits         6103     6103           
  Misses        330      330           
  Partials      119      119
Flag Coverage Δ
#flowapi_unit_tests 79.84% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowauth_unit_tests 93.97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowclient_unit_tests 83.57% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowkit_jwt_generator_unit_tests 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowmachine_unit_tests 91.11% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#integration_tests 59.92% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bc32e37...f995465. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #831 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #831   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.07%   93.07%           
=======================================
  Files         130      130           
  Lines        6552     6552           
  Branches      695      695           
=======================================
  Hits         6098     6098           
  Misses        330      330           
  Partials      124      124
Flag Coverage Δ
#flowapi_unit_tests 77.9% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowauth_unit_tests 93.97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowclient_unit_tests 82.6% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowkit_jwt_generator_unit_tests 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#flowmachine_unit_tests 91.11% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#integration_tests 59.92% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5a9e836...b7d6e05. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@jc-harrison jc-harrison left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, apart from a couple of small comments. Given the way the Makefile has changed, I thikn this is cleaner than having two different env vars to select the services.

Given that the intention is now to pass a list of services (rather than assuming we will usually want to spin up everything), I'm not sure how much benefit there is to have all the separate make targets (e.g. make flowmachine-up when we could instead run DOCKER_SERVICES=flowmachine make up). I'm happy to keep them in for now, though, to wait and see how we use this in practice. I imagine the individual make *-build targets will continue to be useful, in any case.

Makefile Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@maxalbert maxalbert added the ready-to-merge Label indicating a PR is OK to automerge label May 22, 2019
@mergify mergify bot merged commit eb6c52f into master May 22, 2019
@mergify mergify bot deleted the remove-flowdb-services-env-var branch May 22, 2019 15:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
deployment FlowMachine Issues related to FlowMachine ready-to-merge Label indicating a PR is OK to automerge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FLOWDB_HOST not what I expected
3 participants