-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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.
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
Base Locust Docker image on non-alpine python image #1435
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1435 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.27% 81.31% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 26 26
Lines 2344 2344
Branches 362 362
==========================================
+ Hits 1905 1906 +1
Misses 348 348
+ Partials 91 90 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Nice! Can we drop the use of a builder image while we’re at it? I dont think it saves much (if anything) in image size now, and it simplifies things a little when users make derived images. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice. +1
Great! I'll merge this, and then we'll bump the locust version to 1.1 with the next release. |
This PR makes Locust use the
python:3.8
docker image instead ofpython:3.8-alpine
as the base image.The reason for this is that it'll make it possible to
pip install ...
most PyPI packages out of the box, which should be a very common thing to do in project specific docker images.It comes with a ~900 MB cost in total image size, though I think the
python:3.8
image should be a very common base image to already have pulled, in which case there will effectively be no higher disk usage, and I think it makes sense to prioritize developer convenience and happiness over disk usage.This is what the description at the official docker python repo says about the
python:3.8
image:We could consider maintaining two branches of docker images (
locustio/locust
andlocustio/locust-alpine
), but I don't think it's worth the extra maintenance work.We would have to bump the Locust version to 1.1 if we release this, since it might break end-users custom docker images (the fixes should be very easy though, and mostly consist of removing a bunch of lines no longer needed from their Dockerfiles).