4 ms·

I am particular about how I code my builds so they are portable. I like debugging locally, its faster. Gitlab-Ci does not encourage this and I usually end up re

I am particular about how I code my builds so they are portable. I like debugging locally, its faster. Gitlab-Ci does not encourage this and I usually end up refactoring my colleagues code all the time to this end. Not sure if having a runner is the proper solution to this problem. Off the cuff I feel like there are better ways to go about it if I where making a CI server from scratch. Like only allowing single Docker commands per action? Then you would just those and have a nice portable and consistent environment. But Docker isn't very friendly as development tooling as you have to go through length to persist file artifacts and such. Would seem like there is some room in the space...

orf 7y ago
Gitlab executes shell commands, you can and should run those locally to debug. If your putting complex build logic inside gitlab definitions then perhaps you’re doing it wrong - “make test” or “make release” should be all that Gitlab runs.
- ipodopt 7y ago
  Right, my point was that I shouldn't need to enforce this. Gitlab yaml allows and often goes out of its way to encourage non-portable practices.
  - orf 7y ago
    But... it just runs shell commands. It doesn’t encourage you to do more complex things, especially compared to other CI systems like Jenkins. My point is your complaint seems more general than Gitlab itself.
    - ipodopt 7y ago
      Well, let's see. I am going to exaggerate a touch here but here is what I see at my workplace: a. They will write an inline script. Solution: Rip it out into a file. b. Each Job is using a different container. Solution: use Docker with mapped volumes or we all have the same machines (this might not be possible for some workloads) and only use a single container. Why not run the shell directly you may ask? b.1 Each container has a different environment and my machine has one. b.2 Some things do not run natively on my machine that do on theirs. c. Variables are defined in the yaml instead of the scripts. Solution: Make a local .env file see b. So sure, a local gitlab runner us probably best patch here. But I am imagine if someone made a container runtime specifically for this then wrapped that in a CI config it could be very ergonomic. Which is what I would explore if I where to write a IC today. I am sure some build system today already does this... Things outside (kindof) of Gitlab's control that I might as well complain about while I am here: d. And regardless, there are transient dependencies everywhere (which I blame the all language creators for really, mfs :P ). So everything gets fucked eventually anyhow. Wouldn't it be nice if you could whip out a three year old project, run the build, and its exactly as you left it? e. People thinks all right to allow for mutable versions so I have to asdjnasdaskdjasdlasjdl;askjd;asldkj = asdasdljkdasl;kdjlaskdjaslkjd some non-human readable hash if I am feeling paranoid. d. and e. are firmly in the language creators hand I believe. But Gitlab does offer artifact repositories (which are non-portable and could also easily could be). Gitlab could also save dependency trees in different languages. But really I would gripe to the tool/language creators.
      - Tainnor 7y ago
        But the things that add complexity at least to our gitlab config are precisely things you can't really test well locally, like: - making sure you can access the AWS docker image registry, which may require particular runner configuration - making sure deploy keys are set up correctly so you can access private dependencies - testing caching behaviour - testing improvements to pipeline duration (for us, just parallelising and reordering some things meant build times decreasing from 24 to 9 minutes) - testing when exactly jobs should be triggered (e.g. stages, "only", "when", etc.) - testing the predefined variables (such as the name of the branch) - and so on
      - donmcronald 7y ago
        I agree with this and do the same for a, b, c. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see projects treating Docker based jobs / pipelines like they're deterministic. Unless you learn how everything interacts and are really careful it's very difficult to create repeatable builds with GitLab CI (and most other CI) because of what you say in d. If you can't run a build with your internet disconnected, it's not repeatable and you don't own it. The thing is it's MUCH better for companies like GitLab and GitHub to get you locked in to their SaaS build systems, so simple, repeatable, offline builds will never be a priority. The harder it is, the better it is because they can charge you more money to "manage" it. I have no idea how someone looks at a system like GitHub Actions and likes it. To me it seems obvious what's going on a GitHub. Eventually Microsoft is going to marry a bunch of tech together (ex: GitHub, Visual Studio Online, GitHub Actions, Azure Resource Manager) and everyone will be so hyped about how easy it is to click a button and have dev, build, deploy "just work" that they'll blindly give up control of their development and build environment. Just look at how easy it was for Apple and Google to convince developers to give up their ability to deploy apps without being blessed.
- Volundr 7y ago
  I've frequently found that the way my script behaves in Gitlab CI is very different from running those commands one by one in a shell. In particular, environment variables do not carry over like you expect them to, but there are plenty of other surprised as well. I when working on the build pipeline I frequently find myself doing `git commit --amend`, `git push --force` over and over again to avoid having a billion commits tweaking my build logic.
- jl-gitlab 7y ago
  One relatively easy way to debug is to set up a runner instance on your machine and then send jobs that you're working on there. In that way you are validating real jobs, but can also monitor and interact with what's happening in real time. Features like https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/39527 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/39527 will make this easier and allow you to do similar troubleshooting in an interactive web terminal.

orf 7y ago

Gitlab executes shell commands, you can and should run those locally to debug. If your putting complex build logic inside gitlab definitions then perhaps you’re doing it wrong - “make test” or “make release” should be all that Gitlab runs.

ipodopt 7y ago
Right, my point was that I shouldn't need to enforce this. Gitlab yaml allows and often goes out of its way to encourage non-portable practices.
- orf 7y ago
  But... it just runs shell commands. It doesn’t encourage you to do more complex things, especially compared to other CI systems like Jenkins. My point is your complaint seems more general than Gitlab itself.
  - ipodopt 7y ago
    Well, let's see. I am going to exaggerate a touch here but here is what I see at my workplace: a. They will write an inline script. Solution: Rip it out into a file. b. Each Job is using a different container. Solution: use Docker with mapped volumes or we all have the same machines (this might not be possible for some workloads) and only use a single container. Why not run the shell directly you may ask? b.1 Each container has a different environment and my machine has one. b.2 Some things do not run natively on my machine that do on theirs. c. Variables are defined in the yaml instead of the scripts. Solution: Make a local .env file see b. So sure, a local gitlab runner us probably best patch here. But I am imagine if someone made a container runtime specifically for this then wrapped that in a CI config it could be very ergonomic. Which is what I would explore if I where to write a IC today. I am sure some build system today already does this... Things outside (kindof) of Gitlab's control that I might as well complain about while I am here: d. And regardless, there are transient dependencies everywhere (which I blame the all language creators for really, mfs :P ). So everything gets fucked eventually anyhow. Wouldn't it be nice if you could whip out a three year old project, run the build, and its exactly as you left it? e. People thinks all right to allow for mutable versions so I have to asdjnasdaskdjasdlasjdl;askjd;asldkj = asdasdljkdasl;kdjlaskdjaslkjd some non-human readable hash if I am feeling paranoid. d. and e. are firmly in the language creators hand I believe. But Gitlab does offer artifact repositories (which are non-portable and could also easily could be). Gitlab could also save dependency trees in different languages. But really I would gripe to the tool/language creators.
    - Tainnor 7y ago
      But the things that add complexity at least to our gitlab config are precisely things you can't really test well locally, like: - making sure you can access the AWS docker image registry, which may require particular runner configuration - making sure deploy keys are set up correctly so you can access private dependencies - testing caching behaviour - testing improvements to pipeline duration (for us, just parallelising and reordering some things meant build times decreasing from 24 to 9 minutes) - testing when exactly jobs should be triggered (e.g. stages, "only", "when", etc.) - testing the predefined variables (such as the name of the branch) - and so on
    - donmcronald 7y ago
      I agree with this and do the same for a, b, c. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see projects treating Docker based jobs / pipelines like they're deterministic. Unless you learn how everything interacts and are really careful it's very difficult to create repeatable builds with GitLab CI (and most other CI) because of what you say in d. If you can't run a build with your internet disconnected, it's not repeatable and you don't own it. The thing is it's MUCH better for companies like GitLab and GitHub to get you locked in to their SaaS build systems, so simple, repeatable, offline builds will never be a priority. The harder it is, the better it is because they can charge you more money to "manage" it. I have no idea how someone looks at a system like GitHub Actions and likes it. To me it seems obvious what's going on a GitHub. Eventually Microsoft is going to marry a bunch of tech together (ex: GitHub, Visual Studio Online, GitHub Actions, Azure Resource Manager) and everyone will be so hyped about how easy it is to click a button and have dev, build, deploy "just work" that they'll blindly give up control of their development and build environment. Just look at how easy it was for Apple and Google to convince developers to give up their ability to deploy apps without being blessed.
Volundr 7y ago
I've frequently found that the way my script behaves in Gitlab CI is very different from running those commands one by one in a shell. In particular, environment variables do not carry over like you expect them to, but there are plenty of other surprised as well. I when working on the build pipeline I frequently find myself doing `git commit --amend`, `git push --force` over and over again to avoid having a billion commits tweaking my build logic.
jl-gitlab 7y ago
One relatively easy way to debug is to set up a runner instance on your machine and then send jobs that you're working on there. In that way you are validating real jobs, but can also monitor and interact with what's happening in real time. Features like https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/39527 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/39527 will make this easier and allow you to do similar troubleshooting in an interactive web terminal.