Conversation
fe608a2 to
f304334
Compare
vyasworks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LG, just few qns.
Pls clarify what you meant by moving backend one folder up :)
.github/workflows/test.yaml
Outdated
| tags: | ||
| - dev | ||
| env: | ||
| TF_VERSION: 1.2.4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LG, just few qns.
Pls clarify what you meant by moving backend one folder up :)
Oops! I un-did this to avoid an even bigger diff. Also, I wasn't sure if the zipped prod build referenced the current file path so I thought it would be better to leave it as is.
| @@ -1,28 +0,0 @@ | |||
| /* eslint-disable */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we downgrading from yarn3
apps/backend/Dockerfile
Outdated
| # BUILD FOR PRODUCTION | ||
| ################### | ||
|
|
||
| FROM node:16-alpine3.16 AS build |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will run the apps as lambdas,
but curious why the production build is in the same file as local build
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've included the production build only for testing purposes (ie testing the build/prod version). We are specifying the build target in the docker-compose so the steps to build for production will likely go un-used.
I also wasn't sure if we'd continue to build and run the lambdas from the zipped code or possibly use a docker image in the lambda.
The reason for using incremental builds in the Dockerfile, is (from what I understand): the build itself will be faster, the image smaller, and there will be consistency between the dev/prod images.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I am not sure if I have done the incremental build properly though :)
.github/workflows/test.yaml
Outdated
| on: | ||
| push: | ||
| tags: | ||
| - dev |
c57a160 to
17ce3f2
Compare
4654569 to
9ef8b45
Compare
What has changed: