Initial contribution of sidecar image for TekTon tooling

[ericwill]

Signed-off-by: Eric Williams ericwill@redhat.com

[ericwill]

Part of eclipse-che/che#15752

[ericwill]

@sunix can you review it again, let's get this one merged.

[sunix]

@ericwill I thought we were more likely to add tekton cli to the kubernetes sidecar AND openshift sidecar ?

[ericwill]

@ericwill I thought we were more likely to add tekton cli to the kubernetes sidecar AND openshift sidecar ?

I think it's something we can improve in a later iteration.

[sunix]

It will be harder to change it later on. I recommend to just download tkn binary to the kubernetes and openshift containers.

[ericwill]

Well I'm not convinced it's necessary, as then every user will be getting tekton + octant when they may not need it. It's easier to keep specific containers tailored for specific plugins than it is to increase the size of one image and deal with the performance cost that brings.

[sunix]

I don't think octant is necessary to run tekton. how much additional memory do you think we would need to add to have the tekton extension running?
I really think tekton is the missing pieces between Che and the app running in production in Kubernetes/Openshift. It makes sense to have it integrated it in the same plugin.
In our case we already have 2 plugins that are already quite similar. It means that we would add 2 more plugins: kubernetes+tekton and openshift+tekton.

[ericwill]

I'm starting to wonder whether I shouldn't create a container called "che-container-tools", with all the common dependencies in it. The kube/openshift/tekton sidecars can then use this image as a base.

It would make life easier when it comes to updating common deps like helm, kubectl, etc. @sunix what do you think?

[sunix]

I'm starting to wonder whether I shouldn't create a container called "che-container-tools", with all the common dependencies in it. The kube/openshift/tekton sidecars can then use this image as a base.

It would make life easier when it comes to updating common deps like helm, kubectl, etc. @sunix what do you think?

+1 for that. But I would make one single container for all:
So: kn, tk, kubectl, oc, odo, kubectx and kubens,
maybe also buildah, buildkit ?
That would be use by different plugins. Adding more tools would "only" affect the size of the image, using them in extensions would affect memory usage.

[ericwill]

So: kn, tk, kubectl, oc, odo, kubectx and kubens,
maybe also buildah, buildkit ?
That would be use by different plugins. Adding more tools would "only" affect the size of the image, using them in extensions would affect memory usage.

The k8s-tooling sidecar is already based on the buildah base image, so I can use that as a base for the container-tooling image (layering is fun!). Everything in that list looks fine, except for oc/odo -- it's quite large (almost 1GB), and it's only needed for the OpenShift connector plugin, so I probably won't include it in the general image.

[sunix]

@ericwill So:
k8s-tooling: based on buildah + kn, tk, kubectl, kubectx and kubens
ocp-tooling: based on k8s-tooling + oc, odo

[ericwill]

@ericwill So:
k8s-tooling: based on buildah + kn, tk, kubectl, kubectx and kubens
ocp-tooling: based on k8s-tooling + oc, odo

It would be
container-plugin-tooling: based on buildah + kn, + kubectl, kubectx and kubens
k8s-tooling: based on container-plugin-tooling, + whatever specific configs are needed
ocp-tooling: based on container-plugin-tooling, + oc, odo

I just need to make tekton has sufficient multi-arch support and then I'll make the PR.

[ericwill]

@ericwill So:
k8s-tooling: based on buildah + kn, tk, kubectl, kubectx and kubens
ocp-tooling: based on k8s-tooling + oc, odo

It would be
container-plugin-tooling: based on buildah + kn, + kubectl, kubectx and kubens
k8s-tooling: based on container-plugin-tooling, + whatever specific configs are needed
ocp-tooling: based on container-plugin-tooling, + oc, odo

I just need to make tekton has sufficient multi-arch support and then I'll make the PR.

@sunix so tekton CLI doesn't support ppc64le until version 0.11.0, which is the next release. So in a month or two we'll be able to add it. In the meantime I've left it out from the che-container-tools image.

[gattytto]

is there any reason why the pr has not been merged? I'd like to use this sidecar

[ericwill]

is there any reason why the pr has not been merged? I'd like to use this sidecar

We are waiting for tekton to have proper multi-arch support so I can add it to the che-container-tools base image.

In the meantime we can merge this PR if you like, but the TekTon sidecar image will need to be adapted in a month or two. Is that okay?

[gattytto]

totally, thank you and please do merge