[keycloak-dev] [Keycloak Operator] Builder image

[Stian Thorgersen]

Looks like a sane approach to me. Is it supported on Quay.io?

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> When we were working on Keycloak Operator, we introduced a hacky solution
> for building our image [1]. It uses a shell script to build the binaries
> [2], which turned out to be problematic in Quay due reusing build cache
> [3]. This resulted in our builds containing old binaries, which was
> critical to fix. We found a workaround but I wanted to revisit this issue
> with something better...
>
> In Pull Request #96 [4] I came up with a solution that uses Docker
> Multi-Stage builds. In short - the build is divided into 2 stages. The
> first one creates a container that builds our binaries (so called a builder
> container) and then we copy them (the binaries) to the final container. The
> whole point is that the final container doesn't need to contain Golang,
> Make or any other things necessary to build binaries.
>
> This approach has the following advantages:
> - It makes the image smaller - from ~250 MB to ~54 MB (see [5][6]).
> - It's just a pure UBI8 image with zero other dependencies, which means
> smaller CVE surface.
> - This approach fixes operator-hub build command.
> - It allows to play with build cache using --cache-from (so that you can
> reuse previous build results and modify only the final image).
>
> However, there are some drawbacks as well:
> - Say bye bye to Docker 1.13 (which is installed by default on Fedora OS).
> Multi-stage builds require newer Docker version or Podman [*].
> - Dockerfile had to be moved to project's root. As the build process pulls
> local files (cloned by git), so everything needs to be in the Docker
> context. The easiest (and most stable) way to achieve this is to put the
> Dockerfile into the root.
> - In order to get `operator-sdk build` command fixed, I had to create a
> symbolic link (of the Dockerfile) in the build directory.
>
> Even though, this solution is not aligned with other Keycloak projects, I
> believe that's the right approach. Afterall, with the shell scripts
> approach we're simulating this behavior having a proper solution at hand. I
> would highly encourage (and advise) adopting this approach to other
> Keycloak images (such as Gatekeeper or maybe even Server).
>

Doesn't apply to Gatekeeper or Server as they don't build the distribution,
those images just download the dist and build the images.


>
> If you don't like this solution - I prepared a workaround that fixes our
> build here [7]. It's much less elegant and frankly, I don't like it.
>
> Thanks,
> Sebastian
>
> [*] I like Peter's trick for this - he created an alias for `docker`
> command pointing to `podman` !!!
> [1]
> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-operator/blob/master/build/Dockerfile
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-operator/blob/master/build/Dockerfile#L22
> [3] https://github.com/containers/buildah/issues/1906
> [4] https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-operator/pull/96
> [5] https://quay.io/repository/slaskawi/keycloak-operator-private?tab=tags
> [6] https://quay.io/repository/keycloak/keycloak-operator?tab=tags
> [7] https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-operator/pull/97
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>