31–40 of 67 posts
waaaat? https://github.com/reteps/dockerfmt#:~:text=The%20RUN%20pars... I am firmly in the camp of RUN set -e ;\ export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive ;\ etc etc so I guess this tool isn't for me
> The RUN parser currently doesn't support grouping or semicolons in commands But then example show that it does support `&&`? Why the difference? I pretty much always write RUN foo && \ bar && \ : but it seems syntactically identical to the also valid RUN set -e && \ foo ; \ bar ; \ :
I use `mvdan/sh` [1] under the hood for processing the commands. So it will reformat if [ foo ] ; then bar fi to if [ foo ] then bar fi And also format your example to foo bar In this type of situation, it becomes a little trickier to disambiguate when I need to add semicolons and a backslash, and when I need to add only backslashes. If you use `&&` -- you have disambiguated the two cases so I can format it. [1] http…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use `mvdan/sh` [1] under the hood for processing the commands. So it will reformat if [ foo ] ; then bar fi to if [ foo ] then bar fi And also format your example to foo bar In this type of situation, it becomes a little trickier to disambiguate when I need to add semicolons and a backslash, and when I need to add only backslashes. If you use `&&` -- you have disambiguated the two cases so I can format it. [1] http…
Between that and the difficulty with comments, it feels like maybe not an ideal tool for the job? Although, I can't throw stones; I'd do almost anything to avoid having to write my own parser. (And not meant as an attack regardless, just trying to constructively question this particular design point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between that and the difficulty with comments, it feels like maybe not an ideal tool for the job? Although, I can't throw stones; I'd do almost anything to avoid having to write my own parser. (And not meant as an attack regardless, just trying to constructively question this particular design point)
I am certainly not in the business of writing my own shell parser ;) Though this is a fair point -- I think I could get a more rich level of control over the output by hooking into their parser, albeit with a higher level of complexity.
I had a chuckle when I looked at the source code and could not find a Dockerfile in there. I want to kick the tires on it and the easiest way would be to run it as a Docker container against an existing file and alas, I cannot.
Hi there — I’ll try to distribute a docker release of the binary tomorrow!
so you can still have no dockerfile and the irony is not ruined
I had a chuckle when I looked at the source code and could not find a Dockerfile in there. I want to kick the tires on it and the easiest way would be to run it as a Docker container against an existing file and alas, I cannot.
Regarding this part, you can always just run a base image and add the app yourself. I'm on mobile so can't test, but should be along these lines:
docker run --rm --name dockerfmt \
-v /path/to/Dockerfile:/tmp/Dockerfile \
golang:1.24-alpine sh -c \
"apk add git && go run github.com/reteps/dockerfmt@latest /tmp/Dockerfile"
For this part yes, you'd still need one, but it can be any of your own.
waaaat? https://github.com/reteps/dockerfmt#:~:text=The%20RUN%20pars... I am firmly in the camp of RUN set -e ;\ export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive ;\ etc etc so I guess this tool isn't for me
Is there any reason you prefer `set -e` over `&&`? I'm curious if this is a readability thing.
> The RUN parser currently doesn't support grouping or semicolons in commands But then example show that it does support `&&`? Why the difference? I pretty much always write RUN foo && \ bar && \ : but it seems syntactically identical to the also valid RUN set -e && \ foo ; \ bar ; \ :
OK but is there any way to layer docker files? I'm not talking about compose, I mean like combining layers from different dockers in a nice way?