Closed morse255 closed 3 days ago
Non-blocking and nit-picky, but why
.yaml
rather than.yml
? Either work, we've just used.yml
historically.
I chose compose.yaml
here because it is the (new-ish) preferred naming convention according to the Docker Compose documentation: https://docs.docker.com/compose/intro/compose-application-model/#the-compose-file
This PR modifies the
script/setup
andscript/test
scripts so that a Docker container is used instead of the local development environment. It adds ascript/docker
script to make it easy to start a bash shell inside the Docker container.A few additional notes:
The DaemonKit and Capistrano related scripts no longer work with these changes. I am intentionally keeping this change out of the
main
branch because of that. Both of those dependencies will be removed in future PRs to thecontainerization
branch.The Dockerfile was constructed as a multistage build because this same Dockerfile will be used in our production deployment. Having multiple stages will allow us to integrate the
production
target more easily in a future PR.There is a single
compose.yaml
in this project instead of our typicaldocker-compose.arm64.yml
anddocker-compose.x86.yml
. Because this project has no container dependencies, there was no need for architecture specific Docker Compose configurations.There is no linter included in this change. I will add reek/standard in a subsequent PR.