update ubuntu version for devcontainer #2736
Conversation
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to two Dockerfiles. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
hack/docker/gen/main.gois excluded by!**/gen/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
dockers/dev/Dockerfile(1 hunks)dockers/index/job/deletion/Dockerfile(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
dockers/index/job/deletion/Dockerfile (2)
88-88: LGTM: Entrypoint configuration.
The entrypoint configuration is correct and maintains the principle of least privilege by running as nonroot.
85-85: Verify the use of sample configuration in production.
Adding a sample configuration file directly into the production image might not be the best practice. Consider:
- Using environment-specific configurations
- Mounting configurations at runtime
- Using environment variables for configuration
Let's check if this is a common pattern in other services:
Would you like assistance in implementing a more robust configuration management approach?
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the configuration management patterns in more detail to provide an accurate assessment.
Based on the search results, I can see that using sample configuration files as default configs is a common pattern across multiple Vald components. The ripgrep results show that many services follow this approach:
dockers/tools/cli/loadtest/Dockerfile:COPY cmd/tools/cli/loadtest/sample.yaml /etc/server/config.yaml
dockers/gateway/lb/Dockerfile:COPY cmd/gateway/lb/sample.yaml /etc/server/config.yaml
dockers/index/operator/Dockerfile:COPY cmd/index/operator/sample.yaml /etc/server/config.yaml
...and many more
Additionally, looking at the documentation in docs/tutorial/vald-agent-standalone-on-docker.md, it shows that sample configurations are provided as reference configurations that can be customized for different environments.
Let me check the actual sample configuration content to verify if it's suitable for production use.
After reviewing the sample configuration file and seeing how it's used across the Vald ecosystem, I can provide a definitive response:
Using sample.yaml as config.yaml is an acceptable practice in Vald
The sample configuration file contains a complete, production-ready configuration template with:
- Proper security settings (TLS configurations, though disabled by default)
- Well-structured service configurations with reasonable defaults
- Production-oriented observability settings
- Comprehensive client/server configurations
The pattern of using sample.yaml as config.yaml is consistently implemented across all Vald components, indicating this is an intentional design choice rather than a development shortcut. The sample configs serve as validated default configurations that can be customized through environment variables or mounted config files when needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other services use sample configs in their Dockerfiles
rg -g 'dockers/**/Dockerfile' 'COPY.*sample\.yaml.*config\.yaml'
# Check if there's documentation about configuration management
fd -g '*.md' -x rg -l 'configuration management|config.yaml'
Length of output: 1803
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the documentation to understand the configuration management approach
cat docs/tutorial/vald-agent-standalone-on-docker.md docs/performance/loadtest.md
# Also check if there's a helm chart that might override these configs
fd -g 'values.yaml' -x cat {}
# Check if sample configs are meant to be templates
fd -g 'sample.yaml' -x head -n 5 {}
Length of output: 556289
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the sample config being used
cat cmd/index/job/deletion/sample.yaml
# Also check if there's any documentation about configuration management
rg -l "configuration management" docs/
Length of output: 6168
dockers/dev/Dockerfile (2)
Line range hint 21-150: Verify development tool compatibility
The Dockerfile installs numerous development tools and dependencies. Ensure all these tools are compatible with Ubuntu 24.04:
- Go toolchain and related tools
- Rust and cargo
- Node.js and npm
- Development tools (delve, gopls, etc.)
- Build dependencies (cmake, gcc, etc.)
Let's verify the tool installations:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential compatibility issues with development tools
# Test: Search for make commands that install tools
echo "=== Development Tool Installation Commands ==="
rg "make.*?/install" -A 1
# Test: Search for potential version constraints or requirements
echo "=== Version Requirements ==="
rg "(version|VERSION|>=|<=|>|<)"21-21:
Caution: Ubuntu 24.04 is currently in development/beta
Updating to Ubuntu 24.04 (Noble Numbat) might introduce stability issues as it's still in development. Consider the following risks:
- Package compatibility issues
- System stability concerns
- Security implications of using a pre-release version
Let's verify the package compatibility with Ubuntu 24.04:
|
[CHATOPS:HELP] ChatOps commands.
|
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
Deploying vald with
|
| Latest commit: |
415e4af
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://5dd21299.vald.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://refactor-hack-dockers-update.vald.pages.dev |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml (1)
66-66: Consider build time optimization strategies.Multi-architecture builds can significantly increase build times. Consider implementing the following optimizations:
- Use build caching
- Implement parallel builds where possible
- Consider using matrix builds for different architectures in development branches
Would you like assistance in implementing any of these optimizations?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml (1)
66-66: LGTM! Multi-architecture support is a good addition.
The addition of multi-architecture support (linux/amd64,linux/arm64) aligns well with the Ubuntu version update and ensures the development container works across different platforms.
Let's verify the GitHub Actions runner compatibility:
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the workflow file mentioned in the review comment.
Let me check the referenced workflow file to verify the setup.
Multi-architecture support is properly configured and safe to use
The workflow is correctly set up for multi-architecture builds with proper infrastructure:
- Uses
ubuntu-latestrunner which supports multi-arch builds - Configures QEMU emulation via
docker/setup-qemu-action@v3 - Sets up Buildx with both amd64 and arm64 platform support
- Uses a custom buildkit image with proper configuration for multi-arch builds
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the workflow uses a runner that supports multi-arch builds
# Test: Check if the workflow uses appropriate runner labels
rg -A 5 'runs-on:' .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml
# Test: Check if QEMU is set up for multi-arch builds
rg -A 5 'docker/setup-qemu-action' .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml
Length of output: 962
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual workflow file mentioned in the review comment
rg -A 10 'runs-on:|docker/setup-qemu-action' .github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml
Length of output: 97
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's verify if the file exists and see its content
ls -l .github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml
cat .github/workflows/dockers-dev-container-image.yaml
Length of output: 2145
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the reusable workflow file that's being referenced
cat .github/workflows/_docker-image.yaml
Length of output: 4523
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
vankichi
force-pushed
the
refactor/hack-dockers/update-ubuntu-version-for-devcontainer
branch
from
348a232
to
f55b80c
Compare
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
Makefile.d/helm.mk (1)
23-28: Improved architecture handling, but consider enhancing error handlingThe changes improve architecture support by properly handling different CPU architectures (aarch64→arm64, x86_64→amd64). However, consider adding error handling for download failures.
Consider adding these improvements:
$(eval DARCH := $(subst aarch64,arm64,$(ARCH))) - TAR_NAME=helm-$(HELM_VERSION)-$(OS)-$(subst x86_64,amd64,$(shell echo $(DARCH) | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')).tar.gz \ - && cd $(TEMP_DIR) \ - && curl -fsSL "https://github.com/helm/helm/releases/download/$(HELM_VERSION)/$${TAR_NAME}" -o "$(TEMP_DIR)/$${TAR_NAME}" - && tar xzvf "$(TEMP_DIR)/$${TAR_NAME}" \ - && mv helm $(BINDIR)/helm + TAR_NAME=helm-$(HELM_VERSION)-$(OS)-$(subst x86_64,amd64,$(shell echo $(DARCH) | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')).tar.gz; \ + cd $(TEMP_DIR) || exit 1; \ + if ! curl -fsSL "https://github.com/helm/helm/releases/download/$(HELM_VERSION)/$${TAR_NAME}" -o "$(TEMP_DIR)/$${TAR_NAME}"; then \ + echo "Failed to download Helm binary"; \ + exit 1; \ + fi; \ + if ! tar xzvf "$(TEMP_DIR)/$${TAR_NAME}"; then \ + echo "Failed to extract Helm archive"; \ + exit 1; \ + fi; \ + mv helm $(BINDIR)/helm; \ + rm -f "$(TEMP_DIR)/$${TAR_NAME}"This improves the installation process by:
- Adding explicit error handling for download and extraction failures
- Cleaning up the temporary archive file after successful installation
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
dockers/dev/Dockerfile (1)
Line range hint
1-150: Consider version pinning for tool installationsWhile the Dockerfile defines version variables for Go and Rust, many other tools are installed without explicit version pinning. This could lead to inconsistency across builds.
Consider:
- Adding version variables for critical tools (kubectl, helm, etc.)
- Verifying tool versions after installation
- Adding version constraints in the make commands
Example approach:
ARG GO_VERSION ARG RUST_VERSION +ARG KUBECTL_VERSION +ARG HELM_VERSION +ARG NGT_VERSION +ARG FAISS_VERSIONThen use these versions in the respective make commands:
- && make kubectl/install \ - && make helm/install \ + && make KUBECTL_VERSION="${KUBECTL_VERSION}" kubectl/install \ + && make HELM_VERSION="${HELM_VERSION}" helm/install \
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
dockers/dev/Dockerfile(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
dockers/dev/Dockerfile (1)
69-70: Verify package availability and compatibility
The removal of software-properties-common and PPA repository management could impact the installation of certain development tools. Please ensure that all required packages are available in the default Ubuntu 24.04 repositories.
Signed-off-by: vankichi <[email protected]>
|
@coderabbitai please review |
|
@vankichi: I will review the changes. ✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
Description
SSIA
Related Issue
Versions
Checklist
Special notes for your reviewer
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
sample.yaml) to the final image for enhanced application setup.Bug Fixes