Open simonjjones opened 4 years ago
Should this be supported for all commands, or only for some? For instance, pack version --dry-run
wouldn't seem to add much value, while obviously pack build --dry-run
or pack rebase --dry-run
would.
Could you elaborate on "outputs any pack generated logs that would occur during a real execution"?
Thinking about something like pack build
how would the output be generated if it's mostly output of executed buildpacks and from my understanding the buildpack's build binary wouldn't actually execute.
This is a really good idea!
I agree with @dfreilich (https://github.com/buildpacks/pack/issues/681#issuecomment-641576328) that it's probably not necessary for all of the pack
commands.
Maybe it's worth being more specific and specifying the expected output of each command (AC with examples of each relevant command).
I think the stateless commands should still run, the solution would still be valid as there are no interactions with external dependencies in those cases.
A pack detect
or similar command (with optional json output?) would be pretty neat so that we can report to users what their apps look like before actually building it (useful for platform onboarding).
@josegonzalez Agreed. This is an underlying premise with pack-interact-mode.
@simonjjones @jromero @dfreilich Can we have a little more detail about what the original intent of --dry-run
was?
@haliliceylan and I were following the thread and are lost. In the pack build
case for example:
detect
phase?Blocked (or perhaps more accurately, superseded) by https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/308
Description
I would like to validate the configuration and intended outcome of a command I plan to run without incurring the cost of executing against real code and resources
Proposed solution
Each
pack
command can be invoked with a--dry-run
argument which:Describe alternatives you've considered
Additional context