Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Investigate splitting into many packages with a shared Dockerfile-base #562

Closed
stan-dot opened this issue Jul 18, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Investigate splitting into many packages with a shared Dockerfile-base #562

stan-dot opened this issue Jul 18, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
@stan-dot
Labels
python Pull requests that update Python code worker Relates to worker code

Comments

@stan-dot
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@stan-dot stan-dot added python Pull requests that update Python code worker Relates to worker code labels Jul 18, 2024
@stan-dot stan-dot self-assigned this Jul 18, 2024
@stan-dot
Copy link
Contributor Author

what is interesting and necessary to get a clear answer on is how are plans defined? they cannot be serialized

@stan-dot
Copy link
Contributor Author

the list of necessary changes is in the todo.md file. This awaits the #363

@stan-dot stan-dot linked a pull request Jul 18, 2024 that will close this issue
562 investigate splitting into entrypoints with a shared dockerfile base #563
Closed
5 tasks
@stan-dot
Copy link
Contributor Author

stan-dot commented Aug 8, 2024

@callumforrester this is required for the scenario where the rest api to run in the central cluster while the worker runs on the beamline. do you have any preferences wrt implementation?

@callumforrester
Copy link
Contributor

@stan-dot I don't think this is a requirement. For a first implementation having both in one image is fine, and we can run either blueapi worker or blueapi job_manager or something like that.

@stan-dot
Copy link
Contributor Author

stan-dot commented Aug 8, 2024

that is fair. the only drawback is the image size going slightly up, maybe different if dependencies are counted. Can we close this then as not planned?

@callumforrester
Copy link
Contributor

Will do, I suggest we raise a separate issue about image size optimisation when we decide that is a problem

@callumforrester callumforrester closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Aug 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@stan-dot stan-dot

Labels
python Pull requests that update Python code worker Relates to worker code
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

562 investigate splitting into entrypoints with a shared dockerfile base DiamondLightSource/blueapi
2 participants
@callumforrester @stan-dot