Best Build Workflow for Node and Docker












0















For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    
yarn build # build our application
    
yarn test # perform tests
    
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    
rm -rf src # Remove source files
    
yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    
yarn build
    
yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    
yarn start







docker workflow devops







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 19:59











  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

    – simbolo
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:11






  • 1





    So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:13
















0















For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    
yarn build # build our application
    
yarn test # perform tests
    
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    
rm -rf src # Remove source files
    
yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    
yarn build
    
yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    
yarn start







docker workflow devops







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 19:59











  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

    – simbolo
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:11






  • 1





    So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:13














0












0








0








For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    
yarn build # build our application
    
yarn test # perform tests
    
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    
rm -rf src # Remove source files
    
yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    
yarn build
    
yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    
yarn start







docker workflow devops







share|improve this question
















For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    
yarn build # build our application
    
yarn test # perform tests
    
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    
rm -rf src # Remove source files
    
yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    
yarn build
    
yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    
yarn start







docker workflow devops




docker workflow devops






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 21 '18 at 20:06









jonrsharpe

78.6k11110220




78.6k11110220










asked Nov 21 '18 at 19:52









simbolosimbolo

4,33123776




4,33123776








  • 1





    If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 19:59











  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

    – simbolo
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:11






  • 1





    So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:13














  • 1





    If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 19:59











  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

    – simbolo
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:11






  • 1





    So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 '18 at 20:13








1




1





If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 '18 at 19:59





If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?

– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 '18 at 19:59













I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

– simbolo
Nov 21 '18 at 20:11





I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.

– simbolo
Nov 21 '18 at 20:11




1




1





So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13





So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?

– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 '18 at 20:13












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

    – simbolo
    Nov 26 '18 at 18:02











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419580%2fbest-build-workflow-for-node-and-docker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

    – simbolo
    Nov 26 '18 at 18:02
















1














If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

    – simbolo
    Nov 26 '18 at 18:02














1












1








1







If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






share|improve this answer















If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 22 '18 at 12:47

























answered Nov 22 '18 at 12:41









CyclopsCyclops

1,03179




1,03179













  • Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

    – simbolo
    Nov 26 '18 at 18:02



















  • Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

    – simbolo
    Nov 26 '18 at 18:02

















Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

– simbolo
Nov 26 '18 at 18:02





Thanks for the insight. I guess it is not practical to to run the build + testing + cleanup commands as a single RUN statement to avoid the extra layer, but more 'cleaner' to run them separately but ultimatly copy them to the final container resulting in just one layer.

– simbolo
Nov 26 '18 at 18:02




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419580%2fbest-build-workflow-for-node-and-docker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more