update dockerfile and add build step of frontend #567
Conversation
|
Hi @chenzhiwei. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
1 similar comment
|
Hi @chenzhiwei. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
| @@ -9,6 +9,13 @@ COPY . . | |||
|
|
|||
| WORKDIR ./frontend | |||
|
|
|||
| # Workaround for ppc64le since phantomjs does not support ppc64le | |||
| RUN if [ "$(uname -m)" = "ppc64le" ]; then \ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain this a little more? Why is phantomjs needed in the Docker image?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
phantomjs is a build time required package, the final docker image will not contain it.
as you can see, this is a multi-stage dockerfile, it is only used in builder not the final image.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, but I'm trying to see why phantomjs is needed in the first place.
It seems like this is because we list backstopjs in our package.json? This is a dev dependency though, and isn't needed for the production build. Does the build fail on ppc64le without this fix?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, phantomjs does not support ppc64le, so I used an ibmsoe fork of phantomjs which supports ppc64le.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if the main repo needs to support building on PowerPc though, seems like a fringe use case to me. Is this needed for your local dev workflow? Why not modify the code locally? This code is mainly used by our CloudBuild process, which runs on a regular x86 architecture.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code does not block the current CloudBuild process, and also works in our PowerPC local build process.
With this additional commands, the official repo will support both x86 and power, can we just make it available in official repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, although we can't make sure nothing else breaks on PowerPC.
|
/ok-to-test |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: IronPan, yebrahim The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
1 similar comment
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: IronPan, yebrahim The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
* Context should be the components directory see Related to kubeflow/kubeflow#4582
* Regenerate E2E test logs for release 0.8.0 * Regerate "golden" log files * Regenerate "golden" logs after PR kubeflow#567 * Update list of ignored tests * Add cond_recur.yaml to list of ignored tests * Regenerate E2E logs after updating "golden" YAML files of unit tests * Regenerate E2E logs after enabling auto-strip EOF * Regenerate "golden" YAML for unit tests * Rename loop-static CRDs * Regenerate E2E logs, enable EOF stripping only for E2E test
This change is