171–180 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgive me, but it sounds dangerous and insecure to give your software the kind of access that would be required to do what you described. Even with safety measures and auditing in place, I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable doing this.
How is this any less secure than handing the customer a zip file containing arbitrary binary files and asking them to execute them with admin privileges?
It genuinely hadn't crossed my mind that a CI system and a build system were different things - maybe because I usually work in dynamic rather than compiled languages? I've used Jenkins, Circle CI, GitLab and GitHub Actions and I've always considered them to be a "remote code execution in response to triggers relating to my coding workflow" systems, which I think covers both build and CI.
I've been wishing for one of my small projects (3 developers) for some kind of "proof of tests" tool that would allow a developer to run tests locally, and add some sort of token to the commit message assuring that they pass. I could honestly do without a ton of the remote-execution-as-a-service in my current GitLab CI setup, and be happy to run my deployment automation scripts on my own machine if I could have some…
You are right. Small teams absolutely do not need to execute code remotely, especially if the cost is having an always on job server. My team writes test output to our knowledge base: bugout trap --title "$REPO_NAME tests: $(date -u +%Y%m%d-%H%M)" --tags $REPO_NAME,test,zomglings,$(git rev-parse HEAD) -- ./test.sh This runs test.sh and reports stdout and stderr to our team knowledge base with tags that we can use to…
Super debatable. You should have some builds and tests run in a clean environment. Maybe you could do it in a Docker container. But otherwise, you want a remote server.
Devs mess up their environment too much for a regular dev machine to be a reliable build machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much. Docker in my experience is the same way, people see docker as the new hotness then treat it like a Linux box with a shell script (though at least with the benefit you can shoot it in the head). One of the other teams had an issue with reproducibility on something they where doing so I suggested that they use a multistage build in docker and export the result out as an artefact they could deploy, they loo…
>Also feels like people adopt tools and cobble shit together from google/SO, what happened to RTFM. Sometimes it's easier to google because TFM is written by people who are intricately familiar with the tool and forget what it's like to be unfamiliar with it. Look at git for example; the docs are atrocious. Here's the first line under DESCRIPTION for "man git-push": >Updates remote refs using local refs, while sendin…
That being the case, the first thing you need to read is the main git man page. At the bottom of it (sadly) you find references to gitrevisions and gitglossary man pages. Those should provide enough information and examples to understand what a ref is, yet probably even these could be better.
I'm in full agreement that this is terribly undiscoverable, but if you really want to RTFM, you mustn't stop at just the first page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so true. I used Ant > Maven > Gradle. The thing that I think is different about modern CI is there's no good, standard way of adding functionality. So it's almost never write a plugin and always hack something together. And none of it's portable between build systems which are (almost) all SaaS, so it's like getting the absolute worst of everything. I'll be absolutely shocked if current CI builds still work in 1…
Haha. I'd be surprised if they work NEXT year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What Turing complete language cleanly models some bits of code running on one environment and then transitions to other code running on an entirely different environment? Any language that runs in both environments with an environment abstraction that spans both? >Folks tend to go declarative to force environment-portable configuration. Declarative is always better if you can get away with it. However, it inevitably…
> Any language that runs in both environments with an environment abstraction that spans both? Do you have examples? This is harder to do than it would seem. You would need an on demand environment setup (a virtualenv and a lockfile?) or a homogeneous environment and some sort of RPC mechanism (transmit a jar and execute). I expect either to be possible, though I expect the required verbosity and rigor to impede sign…
Examples of cross platform code? There are millions.
>You would need an on demand environment setup (a virtualenv and a lockfile?) or a homogeneous environment and some sort of RPC mechanism (transmit a jar and execute). I expect either to be possible, though I expect the required verbosity and rigor to impede significant adoption.
Why need it be verbose? A high level rewuorements, a lock file and one or two code files ought to be sufficient for most purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been a few years since I tried to use it, but at the time the documentation was sparse and misleading. I couldn’t tell the right way to write my own rules and there were several concepts which were muddled. Some of the docs suggested I could extend it by implementing my own rules or macros and other docs suggested I had to delve into the extension interface which was a mess of convoluted Java (the kind of OOP th…
All fair points actually, a lot of babel rules were originally implemented internally in the starlark interpreter itself (written in java). I think nowadays a lot of the language support is implemented in skylark, and "toolchains" are first class concepts. I definitely had entire days occupied by bazel when I used it, but when I figured something out, it generally "just worked" for the rest of the team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He pretty much abandoned his very popular website and went all in on YouTube. Why? Apparently watching video is so much easier than reading 3000 word article. Learning from videos is lazy? Content you've learned is only valid if you read it? I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at, but I'm a visual learner and I much prefer (well made) videos over text. There's a visual and audio aspect to it enabling so much mo…
I do have a prejudice against people who tell me they learn something through a video. There are good video creators and good educational videos, but there’s just too much trash. Besides that, I default to text content because of the monetary incentives on youtube, it’s absurd that a 10 min read, can be a more than half hour video that never gets to the point.
Bad content has absolutely nothing to do with the format. What a ridiculous statement. As if there aren't thousands of even worse articles, blog posts and incomplete/outdated documentation for every bad video. Does W3 schools ring a bell?
>it’s absurd that a 10 min read, can be a more than half hour video that never gets to the point
It's absurd you're blaming bad content on the format, which is also ironic because you missed where I explicitly wrote in text that I prefer well made videos. Do you expect every single piece of text you come across to be a concise and up to date source of truth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is an entirely new dialect necessary? Why couldn't it just have been a python library?
It started as that at Google and was a nightmare in the long run. People would sneak in dependencies on non-hermetic or non-reproducible behavior all the time. The classic "this just needs to work, screw it I'm pulling in this library to make it happen" problem. It just kept getting more and more complex to detect and stop those kinds of issues. Hence a new language with no ability to skirt around its hermetic and no…
It seems to work pretty well, though it feels a little constraining when I'm trying to figure something out and I can't do the standard `import pdb; pdb.set_trace()` thing. There's probably a way around that, but I've never bothered to figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say it's not about the capabilities of the language, but the scope of the environment. You need a language to orchestrate your builds and tests (which usually means command execution, variable interpolation, conditional statements and looping constructs), and you need a language to interact with your build system (fetching code, storing and fetching build artifacts, metadata administration). Lua would be a good c…
People hate on it, but do you know what language would be perfect these days? Easy shelling - check. Easily embeddable - check Easily sandboxable - check. Reasonably rich standard library - check. High level abstractions - check. If you're still guessing what language it is, it's Tcl. Good old Tcl. It's just that is syntax is moderately weird and the documentation available for it is so ancient and creaky that you ca…
They did. Larry McVoy of BitMover created Little, a typed extension of Tcl [0]. Didn't do the marketing bit, though.