OpenSlides - digital motion and assembly system
-
@jimcavoli Very cool. Where is the repo? Also, does the app work well?
@girish Works really well; repo forthcoming. I'm still working locally. The main trick just seems to be setting a reasonable floor for the memory limit; I think it's going to be 768M or so as a minimum to ensure the workers all stay up and responsive for a reasonable handful of connections. It makes heavy use of web sockets so it's a hair resource intensive, but given the nature of it, it shouldn't be a big deal for folks to deploy, test, scale up temporarily for an event, and scale back or remove after it's done. The app is rather specifically designed that each installation is one event, something they may change in the future, but for now, really makes running it on Cloudron so much more sensible than any other methodology. (their documentation on how to run it is garbage, basically though; really pushing the hosted version with the dearth of docs)
I'll just finish a little more testing, especially around file uploads and media handling, tonight, and that repo will be linked here following.
-
Repo with initial packaging: https://git.cloudron.io/jimcavoli/openslides-app
I'd regard this as pretty ready to go at this point - all packaging choices were in line with the production configurations recommended by the project. I've tested pretty much everything except SAML manually. User management is independent for the time being as described previously. Also notable is that after some testing, I found
524288000left enough headroom as a memoryLimit floor that the app was usable without constant restarts for light duty (not going to service a 1000 person assembly, probably, but fine for prepping an event and then deciding how to scale up from there). Other notes are in the README of the packaging repo. Also recommend building with buildkit turned on if you don't normally - the JS compilation takes a short eternity, but the Dockerfile takes pretty good advantage of buildkit multistage builds for parallelizing as well as limiting bloat in the final container. -
Repo with initial packaging: https://git.cloudron.io/jimcavoli/openslides-app
I'd regard this as pretty ready to go at this point - all packaging choices were in line with the production configurations recommended by the project. I've tested pretty much everything except SAML manually. User management is independent for the time being as described previously. Also notable is that after some testing, I found
524288000left enough headroom as a memoryLimit floor that the app was usable without constant restarts for light duty (not going to service a 1000 person assembly, probably, but fine for prepping an event and then deciding how to scale up from there). Other notes are in the README of the packaging repo. Also recommend building with buildkit turned on if you don't normally - the JS compilation takes a short eternity, but the Dockerfile takes pretty good advantage of buildkit multistage builds for parallelizing as well as limiting bloat in the final container. -
@jimcavoli awesome, thanks! will take a look next week.
Marked this as wip.
-
@girish Just a bump on this - figure it got lost in the 6.0-releasing shuffle. No huge deal, but hope it can still make
unstablethis year
@jimcavoli Not lost
It's marked as https://forum.cloudron.io/tags/wip . But yes, now that we got Cloudron 6 out of the day (save the announcements), we will have time to push these out. -
The build currently fails
Step 6/32 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in cb29f0b4fa6c % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 121 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 121 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above. -
-
I've updated https://git.cloudron.io/jimcavoli/openslides-app for OpenSlides 3.3
-
@jimcavoli Oh wow, this with LDAP and large voting sessions can become a breeze.
@yusf I agree. Unfortunately it only supports SAML for SSO so far. Could send a feature request upstream. I've also got a partially-implemented packaging of the Shibboleth IdP for Cloudron, but that's a little stalled while I work out how to deal with some of its idiosyncrasies
-
@jimcavoli I tried building it again the other day and still got the same error. So, I have to investigate why. Maybe something with multi-state builds and our build server.
Step 1/33 : FROM cloudron/base:2.0.0 AS base ---> afa4cfc125b4 Step 2/33 : ARG OPENSLIDES_VERSION=3.3 ---> Using cache ---> ab03eb3a365d Step 3/33 : ARG NODE_VERSION=13.14.0 ---> Using cache ---> fb11ecf942b5 Step 4/33 : RUN apt-get update && apt-get -y install apt-transport-https bzip2 curl g++ gcc git gnupg2 libpq-dev make postgresql-client rsync wait-for-it wget xz-utils zlib1g-dev libffi-dev dnsutils iputils-ping netcat procps traceroute libxml2-dev libxmlsec1-dev libxmlsec1-openssl pkg-config python3-setuptools gunicorn3 && rm -rf /var/cache/apt /var/lib/apt/lists ---> Using cache ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 5/33 : FROM base as build ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 6/33 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in e115acee95fb % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 84 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 85 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above. -
@jimcavoli I tried building it again the other day and still got the same error. So, I have to investigate why. Maybe something with multi-state builds and our build server.
Step 1/33 : FROM cloudron/base:2.0.0 AS base ---> afa4cfc125b4 Step 2/33 : ARG OPENSLIDES_VERSION=3.3 ---> Using cache ---> ab03eb3a365d Step 3/33 : ARG NODE_VERSION=13.14.0 ---> Using cache ---> fb11ecf942b5 Step 4/33 : RUN apt-get update && apt-get -y install apt-transport-https bzip2 curl g++ gcc git gnupg2 libpq-dev make postgresql-client rsync wait-for-it wget xz-utils zlib1g-dev libffi-dev dnsutils iputils-ping netcat procps traceroute libxml2-dev libxmlsec1-dev libxmlsec1-openssl pkg-config python3-setuptools gunicorn3 && rm -rf /var/cache/apt /var/lib/apt/lists ---> Using cache ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 5/33 : FROM base as build ---> 74dcae334cc2 Step 6/33 : RUN mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src ---> Running in e115acee95fb % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 9 100 9 0 0 84 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 85 gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now The command '/bin/bash -c mkdir -p /app/{src,build} && curl -L https://github.com/OpenSlides/OpenSlides/archive/${OPENSLIDES_VERSION}.tar.gz | tar zxf - --strip-components 1 -C /app/src && chown -R cloudron:cloudron /app/src' returned a non-zero code: 2 Failed to build app. See log output above.@girish I could try to adjust it to be a straight-through Dockerfile. Alternately, if you aren't running with
DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1on that machine (which it appears not to be based on output), would you want to give that a shot? As of Docker 20.10.0 (released 8 December 2020), it is considered a stable core feature.I've got other packagings coming soon that are written to use the same build features, especially when there's a lot of things to build/download, so it'd be nice to know where we're going to land on this. Looks like packages on both my 18.04 and 20.04 boxes are at 19.03.8 which is the 10 March 2020 release. I do happen to be running 20.10.2 on my development machine (and the remote Ubuntu 20.04 build server to be technical, which is the latest, 04 January 2021 release), but it's not like the artifacts are any less compatible after being output with recent versions (those containers ship just fine onto my test Cloudron).
It seems to me like the buildkit engine should be preferable and backward-compatible as described in https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/build_enhancements/ certainly in the 20.x series and beyond, but I've had no issues using it full-time for over a year on the 19.x series and mixing 20.x builds to 19.x runtimes as well.
-
@girish I could try to adjust it to be a straight-through Dockerfile. Alternately, if you aren't running with
DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1on that machine (which it appears not to be based on output), would you want to give that a shot? As of Docker 20.10.0 (released 8 December 2020), it is considered a stable core feature.I've got other packagings coming soon that are written to use the same build features, especially when there's a lot of things to build/download, so it'd be nice to know where we're going to land on this. Looks like packages on both my 18.04 and 20.04 boxes are at 19.03.8 which is the 10 March 2020 release. I do happen to be running 20.10.2 on my development machine (and the remote Ubuntu 20.04 build server to be technical, which is the latest, 04 January 2021 release), but it's not like the artifacts are any less compatible after being output with recent versions (those containers ship just fine onto my test Cloudron).
It seems to me like the buildkit engine should be preferable and backward-compatible as described in https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/build_enhancements/ certainly in the 20.x series and beyond, but I've had no issues using it full-time for over a year on the 19.x series and mixing 20.x builds to 19.x runtimes as well.
@jimcavoli Yes, I can fix it up. I actually use our build service app which doesn't have BUILDKIT set (assuming, it's off by default). Currently, all cloudrons and all our related services are around Docker 19. I guess we should upgrade Docker to 20 in the next Cloudron release which will help us move forward with the buildkit stuff.
-
@jimcavoli Yes, I can fix it up. I actually use our build service app which doesn't have BUILDKIT set (assuming, it's off by default). Currently, all cloudrons and all our related services are around Docker 19. I guess we should upgrade Docker to 20 in the next Cloudron release which will help us move forward with the buildkit stuff.
-
@girish Sounds good; let me know if you need anything along the way - happy to help in any way I can!
@jimcavoli any progress on this, have to run a small conference in a month.
