upgrading dockest to 2.1.0 #94
Conversation
|
@Nevon would you happen to have any bandwidth to take a look at this small-ish PR? |
|
This is really an @erikengervall thing, as he's the author of Dockest, but I'll try to make time for this once I finish up #93. |
|
Got some conflicts to resolve, but otherwise it seems fine. As long as the tests are passing, it should be good to go. |
| @@ -32,3 +32,5 @@ services: | |||
|
|
|||
| avro_tools: # https://hub.docker.com/r/coderfi/avro-tools | |||
| image: coderfi/avro-tools:1.7.7 | |||
| ports: | |||
| - '9999:9999' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to expose this port for avro-tools?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a bug in dockest I believe where the docker-compose must define a port. I'll look into the root cause and see if there is a workaround that doesn't require this hack.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@erikengervall is this something I should address in dockest, or is there a known workaround?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@erikengervall is this something I should address in dockest, or is there a known workaround?
Hey! There's even a version 3.0.0 of Dockest in the making which will include a number of improvements. Can't tell exactly what the ETA is, but there's a few PRs queued to be merged and some beta testing required before we can release.
I'll look into the root cause and see if there is a workaround that doesn't require this hack.
I'd say this port-hack is okay for now, I could circle back to this piece of code once Dockest v3 is out and this has been addressed 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good, ill take a look as well.
In this PR
Additional Notes
One use case that came to mind as I was testing PR that it might be nice to add other confluent producers to the integration testing suite to test that the deserializers work with other components.