[Fuego] [PATCH] Allow ftc script to properly use Jenkins configured port
Tim.Bird at sony.com
Tim.Bird at sony.com
Mon Feb 12 23:55:20 UTC 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gustavo Sverzut on Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:56 PM
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Bird, Timothy <Tim.Bird at sony.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:17 PM, <Tim.Bird at sony.com> wrote:
> >> something that I'm wondering: why do we ever need to run ftc *outside*
> >> of the container? shouldn't a bash-alias solve this issue for people
> >> that want to do that?
> > No. It's not a given that fuego will always be running in a container.
> > Some people have complained about the overhead of the container.
> > If you have the necessary stuff installed on your host, and don't want
> > to use Jenkins as your front end, there actually only a few things
> > required to allow you to run Fuego on the command line as a regular host
> > process. (e.g. you could do 'ftc run-test' and not talk to a container).
> > This is an incomplete feature now, that I wanted to allow for in the future.
> > (Of course, figuring out where the FUEGO_RO, FUEGO_CORE and
> > dirs. would be essential for this. My plan was to put these into a section
> > of the conf file, and thus reduce the required explicit information down to
> > path.)
> ok, but in this case, AFAIU, there is no need to communicate or handle
> running ftc inside the container should be the same as running ftc
> outside of the container, given that outside of the container you
> properly configured the environment. Basically "inside the container"
> is just a way to get everything configured for you.
It's that, but also a way to have things containerized for you. There's
some security isolation provided by the container. There would be
a tradeoff of different attributes when running inside the container
vs. outside, so I think we'd want to keep both methods.
(That is, when we actually have both methods. Running Fuego without
a container is not currently supported.)
I will actually admit here that it's a kind of bad form on my part to try
to preserve a feature that doesn't exist yet. But it's on my long-term roadmap.
More information about the Fuego