Optimize docker image contents#134
Open
alukach wants to merge 15 commits into
Open
Conversation
🍹
|
🍹
|
Collaborator
|
There seems to be an issue with this refactor... not sure what. |
alukach
commented
Jan 2, 2025
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What I'm changing
In this PR, we copy only the Python coded needed for the function of each service into their corresponding docker images.
How I did it
This was achieved by refactoring the code to place common files into a
cerulean_cloud.commonsubmodule. This made it simpler to copy only thecommonsubmodule and not the entirety of thecerulean_cloudmodule into each docker image.Tip
Reviewing all of these changed files can be overwhelming. Care was given to have clean commits; reviewing each commit separately would probably be a simpler way of understanding what was changed.
Impact
Admittedly, the positive impact in regards to reducing deployment times was minimal. However, I believe it's worth considering keeping this change all the same.
Outside of scope
I believe that this project would benefit from a larger refactor of its code into separate submodules. It's ambiguous what each submodule requires in terms of dependencies. If each submodule had only its own dependencies, then services utilizing those submodules could list the modules themselves as dependencies and not concern its own
requirements.txtfile with these needs.An example layout could look something like:
cerulean_cloud/ auth/ pyproject.toml # `cerulean_cloud.auth`, describes minimum requirements src/ __init__.py auth.py db/ pyproject.toml # `cerulean_cloud.db`, describes minimum requirements src/ __init__.py database_client.py database_schema.py models/ pyproject.toml # `cerulean_cloud.models`, describes minimum requirements src/ __init__.py models.py roda_sentinelhub_client/ pyproject.toml # `cerulean_cloud.roda_sentinelhub_client`, describes minimum requirements src/ __init__.py # Expose `RodaSentinelHubClient` client.py # logic from `roda_sentinelhub_client.py` tiling/ pyproject.toml # `cerulean_cloud.tiling`, describes minimum requirements src/ __init__.py # expose `TitilerClient`, `pixel_to_location`, `adjacent_tile`, `offset_bounds_from_base_tiles` utils.py # logic from `tiling.py` client.py # logic from `titiler_client.py`Services requirements files (e.g.
cerulean_cloud/cloud_function_ais_analysis/requirements.txt) would then look like:../db # ...