Deploying apps that treat code as data
-
In short, I am quite against letting go of these restrictions. I think their benefit is huge. I know it makes it a pain to package some apps, but I still think it's worth it.
As for more specific points:
@girish said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
Latest versions of node don't allow symlinking node_modules anymore
Do you have a source on this ? I am very surprised, as a lot of nodejs utilities use symlinks in node_modules, things like Lerna (https://lerna.js.org/), or even native
npm link.@girish said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
Koel wants to write to public directory to storage cover art. This is also the folder that contains all the js/css/webpack output! It also has code accessing things via relative paths. So, symlinking public to writable portion doesn't work.
You could do it the other way around :
- in Dockerfile, rename de folder
/app/code/public2 - create a symlink from
/app/code/publicto/app/data/public - in start.sh create
/app/data/public, and inside it create symlinks to everything in/app/code/public2
A bit hacky, but it should work I think
@mehdi said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
@girish said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
Latest versions of node don't allow symlinking node_modules anymore
Do you have a source on this ? I am very surprised, as a lot of nodejs utilities use symlinks in node_modules, things like Lerna (https://lerna.js.org/), or even native npm link.
Yes, see https://github.com/npm/cli/issues/3669 and (related) https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/22922 . We symlink node_modules in the nodebb app which doesn't work anymore because of this. Not 100% sure but I think npm link creates symlinks inside node_modules which is different from this one where node_modules itself is symlinked.
- in Dockerfile, rename de folder
-
@privsec If the user installs a plugin which is stored in the code area, and the backup only backs up the data area, when the app is deleted and restored from a backup it will lose the plugin and potentially also data.
@infogulch
could the backup locations be updated? -
@mehdi said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
@girish said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
Latest versions of node don't allow symlinking node_modules anymore
Do you have a source on this ? I am very surprised, as a lot of nodejs utilities use symlinks in node_modules, things like Lerna (https://lerna.js.org/), or even native npm link.
Yes, see https://github.com/npm/cli/issues/3669 and (related) https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/22922 . We symlink node_modules in the nodebb app which doesn't work anymore because of this. Not 100% sure but I think npm link creates symlinks inside node_modules which is different from this one where node_modules itself is symlinked.
Probably a possible solution is to allow multiple Volumes to be mounted to the container, so there is no need for a syslink, and is still easy to backup, the backup script knows which volume to backup for each container.
Is a bit more work on the Backup script, but should allow an easier port to Cloudron.Or, I see as an alternative the release of the Manifest standard as a separate Spec from Cloudron, like the "Compose Spec".
This should allow developers to better understand what cloudron and the manifest support and how they work, and hopefully start to act more in line with safer containerization standards.Matteo. R.
Founder and Tech-Support Manager.
MooCloud MSP
Swiss Managed Service Provider -
The problem is this: upstream authors often don't think of deployment and many times treat "code" as data. This means they write plugin and module infrastructure which writes all over the codebase. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that we cannot convince the upstream authors that their approach is not good
Cloudron was designed with the idea of reproducible and immutable deployments. One of the biggest things is that it marks code as read only. This makes sure that apps can't write all over and that backups are actually correct. This is also needed for updates and restore to work reliably/smoothly. I have to say this works very well for most of the apps and yet use cases come up now and then which makes us wonder if we should let go of some of these rigid requirements.
Here's some situations:
- WordPress plugins want to write all over. Some caching plugins even write to the root wordpress directory, no idea why.
- Dolibarr/odoo are like frameworks and you have to deploy a whole bunch of plugins to make them functional. Unfortunately, these plugins also use relative paths like
include "../foo"which tends to break when we symlink mutable paths. - NodeBB plugins are node_modules. Latest versions of node don't allow symlinking node_modules anymore. This means we possibly have to put the entire code in some writable directory.
- Koel wants to write to
publicdirectory to storage cover art. This is also the folder that contains all the js/css/webpack output! It also has code accessing things via relative paths. So, symlinking public to writable portion doesn't work. - Etherpad creates a file inside every node_module plugin directory.
- Nextcloud plugins sometimes access relative paths as well.
(On a separate note: none of the apps have a proper sandboxing and/or versioning mechanism for plugins. this means if a plugin breaks, nothing works.)
Any ideas welcome on how such apps are maintained and updated outside of Cloudron.
@girish : it will for sure be impossible to persuade others to do it the Cloudron way, so the problem has to be addressed.
Personally I feel the Cloudron stability and reliability is SO IMPORTANT that it must be preserved and it is the priority. If it is impossible to find a solution, we have to accept a situation like
"sorry, this XXX app is such a mess, it is not possible to make it comply with Cloudron standards, and even though it is good functionality, and we could possibly package it, we're not going to. Because it's a mess."While I don't have a technical solution approach to the problem, I think it's almost inevitable that we end up with another status of apps :
- OFFICIAL (package tested, released, maintained, conforms to Cloudron standards)
- UNSTABLE (although I don't like this word : should be Beta or not-yet-officially-released)
- MESS or "Pig's Breakfast" (packaged, works, use it, but maintained as best endeavours, esp ref backups, because upstream dev does not conform to Cloudron standards)
Not ideal, but better than lowering Cloudron standards. Would rather accept not having XXX app in the store.
-
Probably a possible solution is to allow multiple Volumes to be mounted to the container, so there is no need for a syslink, and is still easy to backup, the backup script knows which volume to backup for each container.
Is a bit more work on the Backup script, but should allow an easier port to Cloudron.Or, I see as an alternative the release of the Manifest standard as a separate Spec from Cloudron, like the "Compose Spec".
This should allow developers to better understand what cloudron and the manifest support and how they work, and hopefully start to act more in line with safer containerization standards.@moocloud_matt said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
a possible solution is to allow multiple Volumes to be mounted to the container
This is along the lines of OpenEBS storage discussion here.
Elegant way to install an "elevator" to any directory in the container and swap out files we might need, without disrupting the app.
-
@moocloud_matt said in Deploying apps that treat code as data:
a possible solution is to allow multiple Volumes to be mounted to the container
This is along the lines of OpenEBS storage discussion here.
Elegant way to install an "elevator" to any directory in the container and swap out files we might need, without disrupting the app.
@robi
in general, having support for multiple drivers for Volumes is a good idea, but set in the Manifest standard the support for multiple volumes, could solve the issue at least partially.
