Is1884/using integration library

[pcrespov]

What do these changes do?

Simplifies the service project resulting from this cookiecutter by delegating tooling and standard testing to osparc-simcore's service library or ooil in short.

We have moved most of the code in the cookiecutter to ooil library (which lives in osparc-simcore repo). The idea is that there is now a single source of truth : basically the metadata.yml and docker-compose-build.yml files. Then ooil can deduce everything from it.

Next iteration will introduce the .osparc folder approach (but one step at time :-) )

This leads to a much simpler layout! Just FYI, the resulting service project, compared to the previous version :

• removes tools folder code
• removes versioning folder
• removes VERSION files (can be regenerated with ooil
• replaces test code by assert_* helper functions ( test skeleton is maintained in this iteration but could be further simplified)
• moved gitlab/github specific routines in ci to .gitlab and .github folders resp
• improved Makefile recipes ( w/o breaking the interface in this iteration)

How to test

Could you please try this with one of your services? To create a service project using this cookiecutter + python 3.9 just

$ cookiecutter --checkout=is1884/using-integration-library gh:pcrespov/cookiecutter-osparc-service

Then cd the "baked" project and

$ ls -la
$ make devenv 
$ source .venv/bin/activate
$ ooil --version
$ make build
$ make tests

# then can try other recipes
$ make help
$ make VERSION
$ make replay

Related issue number

• M1-12 Proactive onboarding of services and models osparc-issues#694 : proactive onboarding of models and services (Y6)
• Prep2Go: creating features to support complex S4L scripts osparc-issues#304: (Part 2) Prep2Go: creating features to support complex S4L scripts
• M4 Creation of Own o²S²PARC Services osparc-issues#693: creation of own oSPARC services

Checklist

• change version
• add reference to master
• fix failing tests: issue with source-ing in a subprocess! (@sanderegg any idea on test_bake_project.py issue?)
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes
• If you design a new module, add your user to .github/CODEOWNERS

[sanderegg]

thanks a lot. I see a lot of things hat could be improved:

• non using docker buildX
• in the .gitlab folder there are a few deprecated things
• I guess same is true for .github...
  anyway, very very nice.

[elisabettai]

Looks very very promising! Looking forward to try it out (I haven't tested yet with your instructions).