I have a custom module that I want to install on a container running the bitnami/magento docker image within a kubernetes cluster.
I am currently trying to install the module from a local dir into the containers Dockerfile:
# run bitnami's magento container
FROM bitnami/magento:2.2.5-debian-9
# add magento_code directory to the bitnami magento install
# ./magento_data/code contains the module, i.e. Foo/Bar
ADD ./magento_data/code /opt/bitnami/magento/htdocs/app/code
After building and running this image the site pings back a 500 error. The pod logs show that Magento installs correctly but it doesn't know what to do with the custom module:
Exception #0 (UnexpectedValueException): Setup version for module 'Foo_Bar' is not specified
Therefore to get things working I have to open a shell to the container and run some commands:
$ php /opt/bitnami/magento/htdocs/bin/magento setup:upgrade
$ chown -R bitnami:daemon /opt/bitnami/magento/htdocs
The first sorts the magento set up issue, the second ensures the next time an http request comes in Magento is able to correctly generate any directories and files it needs.
This gives me a functioning container, however, kubernetes is not able to rebuild this container as I am manually running a bunch of commands after Magento has installed.
I thought about running the above commands within the containers readinessProbe however not sure if it would work as not 100% on the state of Magento when that is first called, alongside it seeming very hacky.
Any advice on how to best set up custom modules within a bitnami/magento container would be much appreciated.
UPDATE:
Since opening this issue I've been discussing it further on Github: https://github.com/bitnami/bitnami-docker-magento/issues/82
I've got it working via the use of composer instead of manually adding the module to the app/code directory.
I was able to do this by firstly adding the module to Packagist, then I stored my Magento Marketplace authentication details in auth.json:
{
"http-basic": {
"repo.magento.com": {
"username": <MAGENTO_MARKETPLACE_PUBLIC_KEY>,
"password": <MAGENTO_MARKETPLACE_PRIVATE_KEY>
}
}
}
You can get the public & private key values by creating a new access key within marketplace. Place the file in the modules root, alongside your composer.json.
Once I had that I updated my Dockerfile to use the auth.json and require the custom module:
# run bitnami's magento container
FROM bitnami/magento:2.2.5
# Require custom modules
WORKDIR /opt/bitnami/magento/htdocs/
ADD ./auth.json .
RUN composer require foo/bar
I then completed a new install, creating the db container alongside the magento container. However it should also work fine with an existing db so long as the modules versions are the same.
Related
I have a bunch of (Ruby) scripts stored on a server. Up until now, my team has used them by opening an accessor app that launches a list of the script names, and they select the script they want to run in that instance on the files in their working folder. The scripts are run directly from the server, so updates made to the script files are automatically reflected when a user runs the script.
The scripts require a fair amount of specific dependencies, so I'm trying to move to a Docker-based workflow to eliminate the problems we encounter with incongruent computer environments. I've been able to successfully build an image with our script library and run an instance of it on my computer.
However, all of the documentation and tutorials include the application source files when building an image, so that all the files are copied over by the Dockerfile. From my understanding, this means that any time the code in the application files needs to be updated, all the users will need to rebuild the image before trying to run anything. I would very rarely ever need to make changes to the environment settings/dependencies, but the app code is changed relatively frequently, so it seems like having every user rebuild an image every single time a line of app code is changed would actually slow down everyone's workflow considerably.
My question is this: Is it not possible to have Docker simply create the environment that a user must have to run the applications, but have the applications themselves still run directly off the server where they were originally stored? And does a new container need to be created every single time a user wants to run any one of the scripts? (The users are not tech-savvy.)
Generally you'd do this by using a Docker image instead of the checked-out tree of scripts. You can use a Docker registry to store a built copy of the image somewhere on the network; Docker Hub works for this, most large public-cloud providers have some version of this (AWS ECR, Google GCR, Azure ACR, ...), or you can run your own. The workflow for using this would generally look like
# Get any updates to the "latest" version of the image
# (can be run infrequently)
docker pull ourorg/scripts
# Actually run the script, injecting config files and credentials
docker run --rm \
-v $PWD/config:/config \
-v $HOME/.ssh:/config/.ssh \
ourorg/scripts \
some_script.rb
# Nothing in this example actually requires a local copy of the scripts
I'm envisioning a directory that has kind of a mix of scripts and support files and not a lot of organization to it. Still, you could write a simple Dockerfile that looks like
FROM ruby:2.7
WORKDIR /opt/scripts
# As of Bundler 2.1, there is no compatibility between Bundler
# versions; this must match exactly what is in Gemfile.lock
RUN gem install bundler -v 2.1.4
# Copy the scripts in and do basic installation
COPY Gemfile Gemfile.lock .
RUN bundle install
COPY . .
ENV PATH /opt/scripts:$PATH
# Prefix all commands with...
ENTRYPOINT ["bundle", "exec"]
# The default command to run is...
CMD ["ls"]
On the back end you'd need a continous integration service (Jenkins is popular if a little unwieldy; there are a large selection of cloud-hosted ones) that can rebuild the Docker image whenever there's a commit to the source repository. You can generally rig this up so that it happens automatically whenever anybody pushes anything.
This process makes more sense of most people are just using the set of scripts and few of them are developing them. It's also a little bit difficult to discover what the scripts are (you might be able to docker run --rm ourorg/scripts ls though).
Is it not possible to have Docker simply create the environment that a user must have to run the applications, but have the applications themselves still run directly off the server where they were originally stored?
This always strikes me as an ineffective use of Docker. You have all of the fiddly steps of your current workflow that require everyone to run a git pull or equivalent routinely, but you also have to inject the host source tree into the container. If there are OS incompatibilities in, for example, native gems in the vendor tree, you have to work around that.
# You still need to do this periodically
git pull
# And you also need to
sudo docker run \
--rm \
-v $PWD:/app \
-v $HOME/config:/config \
-v $HOME/.ssh:/config/.ssh \
-w /app \
ruby:2.7 \
bundle exec ./some_script.rb
Some of these details (especially the config file and credentials) you'd have to deal with even if you did build an image; some others of the details you could improve by building an image. Inside the image you need to correct the ownership and permissions on the ssh keys and replace the $PWD/vendor tree with something the container can run, without modifying the mounted host directories.
Is it not possible to have Docker simply create the environment that a user must have to run the applications, but have the applications themselves still run directly off the server where they were originally stored?
You can build an image with all the environment already installed then mount the directory with the scripts so the container can read the scripts from the host. Something like
docker run -it --rm -v /opt/myscripts:/myscripts myimage somescript.rb
Then your image Dockerfile would end with:
WORKDIR /myscripts
ENTRYPOINT ["/usr/bin/ruby"]
And does a new container need to be created every single time a user wants to run any one of the scripts?
Of course, a container is just an isolated process managed by docker, you could make a wrapper so the users wouldn't need to type the full docker run command.
I have a react app built with webpack that I want to deploy inside a docker container. I'm currently using the DefinePlugin to pass the api url for the app along with some other environment variables into the app during the build phase. The relevant part of my webpack config looks something like:
plugins: [
new DefinePlugin({
GRAPHQL_API_URL: JSON.stringify(process.env.GRAPHQL_API_URL),
DEBUG: process.env.DEBUG,
...
}),
...
]
Since this strategy requires the environment variables at build time, my docker file is a little icky, since I need to actually put the webpack build call as part of the CMD command:
FROM node:10.16.0-alpine
WORKDIR /usr/app/
COPY . ./
RUN npm install
# EXPOSE and serve -l ports should match
EXPOSE 3000
CMD npm run build && npm run serve -- -l 3000
I'd love for the build step in webpack to be a layer in the docker container (a RUN command), so I could potentially clean out all the source files after the build succeeds, and so start up is faster. Is there a standard strategy for dealing with this issue of using information from the docker environment when you are only serving static files?
How do I use environment variables in a static site inside docker?
This question is broader than your specific problem I think. The generic answer to this is, you can't, by nature of the fact that the content is static. If you need the API URL to be dynamic and modifiable at runtime then there needs to be some feature to support that. I'm not familiar enough with webpack to know if this can work but there is a lot of information at the following link that might help you.
Passing environment-dependent variables in webpack
Is there a standard strategy for dealing with this issue of using information from the docker environment when you are only serving static files?
If you are happy to have the API URL baked into the image then the standard strategy with static content in general is to use a multistage build. This generates the static content and then copies it to a new base image, leaving behind any dependencies that were required for the build.
https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/multistage-build/
While setting up and configure some docker containers I asked myself how I could automatically edit some config files inside the container after the containerized service finished installing (since the config files are created at the installation).
I have tried that using a shell file and adding it as the entrypoint in the Dockerfile. However, as I have said the config file does not exist right at the beginning and hence the sed commands in the script fail.
Linking an config files with - ./myConfig.conf:/xy/myConfig.conf is also not an option because the config contains some installation dependent options.
The most reasonable solution I have found was running a script, which edits the config, manually after the installation has finished with docker exec -i mycontainer sh < editconfig.sh
EDIT
My question is formulated in general terms. However, the question arose while working with Nextcloud in a docker-compose setup similar to the official example. That container contains a config.php file which is the general config file of Nextcloud and is generated during the installation. Certain properties of that files have to be changed (there are only a very limited number of environmental variables to specify). Since I am conducting some tests with this container I have to repeatedly reinstall it and thus reedit the config file.
Maybe you can try another approach and have your config file/application pick its settings from the environmental variables. That would be consistent with the 12factor app methodology see here
How I understand your case you need to start your container from creating config by some template.
I see a number of options to do it:
Use some script that generates a config from template and arguments from a command line or environment variables. (Jinja2 and python for example or Mustache and node.js ). In this case, your entrypoint generate the template and after this start application. For change config, you will be forced restart service (container).
Run some service can save the configuration and render you configuration in run time. Personally, I like consul template, we active use this engine in our environment, and have no problems for while. In this case, config is more dynamic and able to be changed "on the fly". In your container, you will have two processes, application, and consul-template daemon. Obviously, you will need to run and maintain consul. For reloading config restart of an application process is enough.
Run a custom script to create the config. :)
I am considering to package a Rust application into a Docker container.
The current version of that application contains various credential files used to register to Discord API or Google API through a service account key.
Would these files be accessibles if I package my application as such?
[EDIT: added Dockerfile]
FROM rust:1.28.0
WORKDIR /usr/src/<application>
COPY . .
RUN cargo install --force --path .
CMD ["<application>"]
Never put actual credentials into anything that might not be accessed by you and only you.
You basically have two options:
1) Have your application pull the required credentials from its environment, then set these variables when you start the container. see docs
2) Have your application read the credentials from a config file, that doesn't get pulled into the docker image. Then, when running the container, mount that file into it, see docs
You could actually do both: Have an environment variable that tells your application whether it should look for a config file ( maybe in production) and if that variable is unset, check the environment (for development).
Edit: It's best practice to create a .dockerignore File in your build-context, containing the name (or path) of the file holding the credentials.
I'm working on building a website in Go, which is hosted on my home server via docker.
What I'm trying to do:
I make changes to my website/server locally, then push them to github. I'd like to write a dockerfile such that it pulls this data from my github, builds the image, which my docker-compose file will then use to create the container.
Unfortunately, all of my attempts have been somewhat close but wrong.
FROM golang:1.8-onbuild
MAINTAINER <my info>
RUN go get <my github url>
ENV webserver_path /website/
ENV PATH $PATH: webserver_path
COPY website/ .
RUN go build .
ENTRYPOINT ./website
EXPOSE <ports>
This file is kind of a combination of a few small guides I found through google searches, but none quite gave me the information I needed and it never quite worked.
I'm hoping somebody with decent docker experience can just put a Dockerfile together for me to use as a guide so I can find what I'm doing wrong? I think what I'm looking for can be done in only a few lines, and mine is a little more verbose than needed.
ADDITIONAL BUT PROBABLY UNNECESSARY INFORMATION BELOW
Project layout:
Data: is where my go files are Sidenote: This was throwing me errors when trying to build image, something about not being in the environment path. Not sure if that is helpful
Static: CSS, JS, Images
TPL: go template files
Main.go: launches server/website
There are several strategies:
Using of pre-build app. Build your app using
go build command according to target system architecture and OS (using GOOS and GOARCH system variable for example) then use COPY docker command to move this builded file (with assets and templates) to your WORKDIR and finally run it via CMD or ENTRYPOINT (last is preferable). Dockerfile for this example will look like:
FROM scratch
ENV PORT 8000 EXPOSE $PORT
COPY advent / CMD ["/advent"]
Build by dockerfile. Typical Dockerfile:
# Start from a Debian image with the latest version of Go installed
# and a workspace (GOPATH) configured at /go.
FROM golang
# Copy the local package files to the container's workspace.
ADD . /go/src/github.com/golang/example/outyet
# Build the outyet command inside the container.
# (You may fetch or manage dependencies here,
# either manually or with a tool like "godep".)
RUN go install github.com/golang/example/outyet
# Run the outyet command by default when the container starts.
ENTRYPOINT /go/bin/outyet
# Document that the service listens on port 8080.
EXPOSE 8080
Using GitHub. Build your app and pull to dockerhub as ready to use image.
Github supports Webhooks which can be used to do all sorts of things automagically when you push to a git repo. Since you're already running a web server on your home box, why don't you have Github send a POST request to that when it receives a commit on master and have your home box re-download the git repo and restart web services from that?
I was able to solve my issue by just creating an automated build through docker hub, and just using this for my dockerfile:
FROM golang-onbuild
EXPOSE <ports>
It isn't exactly the correct answer to my question, but it is an effective workaround. The automated build connects with my github repo the way I was hoping my dockerfile would.