Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixing Docker build issues. Updated chrome, Potentially fixing issues #603 #537. #668

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 13, 2018

Conversation

iain17
Copy link
Contributor

@iain17 iain17 commented Feb 13, 2018

I wanted to use Chrome and the latest version of BackstopJS using Docker. However the automatic build of BackstopJS isn't working.

This PR fixes the docker build error and updates PhantomJS and Chrome. In order to run on the latest stable Chrome 64 build, I had to change the original alpine base image to the default node image. This potentially fixies the memory leak issues reported in #603 #537

You can test it out on: https://hub.docker.com/r/iain17/backstopjs/

- Changed base image to none alpine. Allowing new chrome version.
- Updated Chrome to the latest (64). Potentially fixing issues garris#603 garris#537
Copy link
Owner

@garris garris left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many thanks!

@garris garris merged commit 6b89ad2 into garris:master Feb 13, 2018
@lmakarov
Copy link
Contributor

The switch to the default (non-alpine) flavor of the base nodejs docker image inflated the resulting (compressed) image size from 303 MB to 653 MB - http://take.ms/9XvDE

Looks like Alpine Edge now has Chromium v64 available:
https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/chromium

For a smaller image size either alpine or the slim flavor of the node image should be used.
See https://hub.docker.com/r/library/node/tags/

  • 8 - Compressed size: 270 MB
  • 8-slim - Compressed size: 92 MB
  • 8-alpine - Compressed size: 23 MB

@garris
Copy link
Owner

garris commented Feb 28, 2018

Hi @lmakarov! Would you mind PR-ing?

@lmakarov
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @garris! I believe rolling back to Alpine would be the easiest. I do, however, like how much simpler the Dockerfile is with Debian. Alpine is the goto distribution for Docker images, however it does make things more complex, as weird workarounds have to be used quite often.

Using 8-slim (a stripped down version of Debian) may be a good middle ground so long as it actually works without introducing workarounds of its own.

@iain17 would you be interested in trying 8-slim as the base image? If not, I'll try to find some time this week for that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants