Open victormartingarcia opened 2 years ago
Thanks! This is a bug, I'll get an updated version out with the additional packages.
@tedivm what do you think would be best for letting folks enable either {oso} or {oso,sqlalchemy-oso} or {oso,django-oso}? I can't imagine someone would ever want both sqlalchemy-oso and django-oso, but maybe I'm not being open-minded enough 😄
So I originally thought that we'd have to build each package, but @victormartingarcia managed to get things working by just changing the python path so all of the packages must be present (and the make build_THING
step is just linking to it). So nothing we do should really change the build size of the images, just whether they're accessible.
That gives a few different options to consider-
I'm likely not going to be able to make a decision on this until this weekend (it's Thanksgiving here and I'll only partially available until the weekend) but all of these are simple changes that should be possible to push out early next week. Until then we can keep the conversation going so we pick the best option available.
I'm not in love with (1) for the downside you mentioned. (2) seems like a great first step. (3) sounds like it might be easier to implement than (4) in the short-term, but this is the first time I've seen that ONBUILD
directive so take my opinion w/ a grain of salt 😄
Hey!
I am copying the oso multi-py packages to my Dockerfile like stated in the doc:
I ran into the issue that, even
django-oso
pypi was successfully installed, I couldn't import it on my code (ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'django_oso'
)Listing all modules available to import,
django-oso
was not there. To my surprise,/opt/oso/languages/python/django-oso/sqlalchemy-oso
WAS there even I have no intention to use it.FYI I managed to make it work adding django-oso to
PYTHONPATH
, but in my opinion it is a bit of unexpected behaviour: