build: unified Dockerfile

[matt-codecov]

make worker, codecov-api, and shared use the same docker/Dockerfile to build their respective containers

they are still separate images with the same names as before. they use the WORKDIR and ENTRYPOINT build args to inject the appropriate values for each project. the images are essentially identical except for those, however - we could publish a single image and infra can change deploys to override the workdir and entrypoint to streamline

note: this new Dockerfile uses a non-root user. shouldn't affect anything but heads up

Stack info:

Stack 1
➡️build: unified Dockerfile #186 chore(api): remove test-only function from production helper file #187 build: trigger all tests when reqs and build glue are changed #190 build: remove dev deps from prod image, add separate test-reqs and test-app images #188

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.21%. Comparing base (90251ff) to head (ef02fc6).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #186   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.21%   94.21%           
=======================================
  Files        1214     1214           
  Lines       45022    45023    +1     
  Branches     1435     1435           
=======================================
+ Hits        42418    42419    +1     
  Misses       2303     2303           
  Partials      301      301           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apiunit	96.48% <ø> (ø)
sharedintegration	39.74% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
sharedunit	88.15% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
workerintegration	61.61% <ø> (ø)
workerunit	90.62% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[codecov-notifications]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[Swatinem]

do we still need libpq-dev? I thought we have switched to precompiled psycopg binaries that do not require building from source?

[matt-codecov]

good question. i imagined psycopg's binary distribution was not a rebundling of libpq but rather a c-layer wrapper of their own, but i don't know

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #186 will not alter performance

_{Comparing branchless/pr186 (ef02fc6) with main (6efc689)}

Summary

✅ 9 untouched benchmarks

[codecov-test]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

ℹ️ You can also turn on project coverage checks and project coverage reporting on Pull Request comment

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[seer-by-sentry]

✅ Sentry found no issues in your recent changes ✅