6 ms·

> This docker image resulted in a 419MB final image and took about 3 minutes to build. There are some obvious issues with this. For instance every-time I change

> This docker image resulted in a 419MB final image and took about 3 minutes to build. There are some obvious issues with this. For instance every-time I change any file it must go through and reinstall all of my node_modules. He doesn't tell whether there have been any build time improvements after the changes to the Dockerfile. Will the builder docker images get cached and thus reduce the build and deployment time?

licebmi__at__ 7y ago
Well, the article mentions an obvious improvement. The node_moduoes won't be rebuilt after any changes to the code, only changes specific to the packages.json. Basically the main step is the COPY . . step (previously COPY . /app) which will invalidate the cache every change to the code. Also that on the builder, the steps beyond npm run are not needed, but well they won't improve much on the performance or space of the overall process.
- azangru 7y ago
  > The node_moduoes won't be rebuilt after any changes to the code, only changes specific to the packages.json. But that's only if the builder image gets cached and can be reused, right?
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    Correct.
1337shadow 7y ago
TBH I have such a setup on yourlabs.io/oss/blog because I like SASS too (SASS, the nice CSS language that integrates nicely with webpack, as long as there's node-gyp which needs python2 and g++ to build CSS, guess I'm not doing it right ><), and to serve as a template project for others that would require more elaborated frontends... ... But in my experience it's pretty boring to wait for the whole JS rebuild when you just add a post, I think next time I'm going to remove the JS build from CI and just commit the built things when I change the frontend code, which is not often.