Support for private/enterprise patterns #286
Comments
|
/cc @pbennett this would be a great place for you to summarize some of the requirements you have that we've discussed :) |
|
Apologies if this is covered elsewhere; I've had a look around and I couldn't find it. The two big use cases I have as at least a semi-enterprise user that often seem to be poorly covered for me is:
Given the way Go works, I think it would suffice for both these use cases to be able to specify an "alias" or something for a package, i.e., "I want github.com/go/AwesomePackage but please pull source from internalgit.enterprise.org/gits/go/AwesomePackage" or something like that. That would be really useful for me. I tried to read the source code to see if this is already there, but I don't think it is? I see "overrides" in the manifest but that appears to be related to relaxing version constraints. |
|
@thejerf it is, but no worries :) Have a look around here - #174 (comment). The Doing them as more than one-offs is trickier, as described in the linked comment. |
|
#148 is one of the main issues I've been running up against using dep in my current project. |
|
Take this all with a grain of salt, I'm still wrapping my head around the Go import model. We have a SVN monorepo and are looking at how we should structure Go code within it and how imports will work. I'm curious what support for a monorepo would look like? Could you elaborate? For example if we have this example monorepo structure: How do we get to the desired GOPATH structure: I've already fought with Go doesn't really care how the code got into the I guess it woud be nice to have the manifest reference a local relative path in the monorepo with a different import name. Something like |
|
@sdboyer hey hey, this isn't exactly about go, but I bet you'd find some of the conversation in rust-lang/rust-roadmap-2017#12 very helpful. We're currently investigating this stuff in rust-land too. Good luck! |
|
@steveklabnik oh man, there's a wealth of useful information there - thanks! |
|
Grr, GitHub mobile moved the button into where the text field was just as I was tapping, sorry :) @aajtodd If you have a monorepo, you will do best if you have a single directory that can be checked out into GOPATH. For example, |
|
@quentinmit That's what I was leaning towards. And yes you are correct that it is currently more a bunch of separate repos/projects stored in one place. Not my choice, such is life. |
|
To properly work inside an enterprise env, the system needs to allow the insertion of an enterprise repository for internally hosted as well as proxied content. It should be easy for a developer in this env to be able to direct all outbound requests to their internal repository similar to the Maven mirrorOf directive. This is mentioned to contrast other ecosystems like bower and npm where the metadata contains absolute urls and the client follows them faithfully. This means the implementation of an enterprise repository has to get in the business of rewriting all the metadata which potentially involves modifying the packages etc (depending on how the metadata is distributed) |
|
I'm not completely up to speed on all the details of how the dependencies are declared, but having a good namespace scheme is also critical. I wrote a bit on my observations with npm to try and help the Jigsaw JSR not repeat the same mistakes. It's really applicable to any packaging system: http://www.sonatype.org/nexus/2017/01/23/advice-for-jigsaw-regarding-auto-modules/ |
|
Agree with @brianf on a number of points (file under not very surprising): For go dep to work "well" in an Enterprise and in general I would hope that it has taken into account:
|
|
Hi @brianf, @DarthHater! It's awesome that y'all are swinging by with thoughts 😄 sorry for the slow response - i did the thing where i backburnered responding "until i had proper time." One note to make up front: a thing that makes
For sure, this is definitely on the radar. Some fairly extensive discussion here: #174 (comment) As discussed in that issue, a direct analogue to
Yeah, we're somewhere in between. There is a facility for specifying a full URL on a per-dependency basis right now, but the typical input is just a Go import path, which we then pass through a rules engine (which, in nonstandard cases, can include HTTP requests to retrieve custom metadata) to derive a real URL. This is definitely a weaker point in the system, but it's a natural outgrowth of the way import paths work. My sense is that we have little room to change the underlying reality, so our design choices here have to aimed towards mitigating chaos.
Again, import paths change the game here a bit, because "names" in Go are import paths, and much of their meaning is already imparted by DNS. However, if/when we do get to registries, I'm inclined to agree with having namespaces - that's why my little proto-example includes them.
I've already mentioned some of the issues with our names/import paths. They're the weakest link in this, but because they're too broad, not because they're too narrow.
Yup, we've got a whole system for this. Because we're all VCS-backed, we have concepts for branches and tags, with tags subdivided into semver and non-semver. Also, revisions (i.e. git commit hashes). And adaptive translation between these three.
This one's interesting, and we haven't fully dealt with it just yet - #291. Things aren't on fire, though, because the current approach is very deliberately global - all os/arch are unconditionally considered in solving. The issue there is about approaches to allowing the tool to safely focus on just a subset of os/arch.
Yeah, from an enterprise org perspective, you end up duplicating a lot of source if you're committing
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but
"Deprecated" might be a bit strong, but I do hope it can become far less common. That said, it's not going to be anytime soon. My (loose, skeletal) plan for it is here.
Yeah, this is all tied up with the first item I responded to. I desperately want to avoid having custom resolvers. On the plus side, import paths being what they are, we can probably encode the information we need in custom import path patterns, then teach the tool the general patterns. This would allow us to The more of this we do, though, the more we start having problems with names/import paths losing canonicality (for a given project, there could be a 1. github 2. registry 3. artifactory, etc.). This probably doesn't matter much within a project, but if my project deps on A, and both my project and A dep on B, but I dep on B's github representation, and A does it via B's registry representation, then we start to have nasty coordination problems. (This problem already exists via the gopkg.in service, though its impacts seem relatively minor for now)
Yep, we follow a two-file system, mostly per the principles I described in my article. The manifest describes constraints; the lock is the result of a solve, and provides reproducibility.
I think this one's mostly covered. Access/credential handling is a bit tricky (e.g. #264), because (ugh) we're still just shelling out to git/hg/bzr/svn, but because all those systems have their own ways of making themselves private, we're good. And, fully I expect that if/when we get to registries, the implementation will be open, so folks can run their own private ones as needed. |
|
I can also submit a use case for this. We currently use GitHub Enterprise hosted internally for our internal Go projects. Using Glide today, we currently have to specify in the glide.yaml file "vcs: git" for every package, otherwise we get an error: "Cannot detect VCS". For private repos, it would be nice if there was a way to augment the list of known repo URLs (i.e. github.com = git) to avoid this problem. We are also plagued by "go get" and other tooling issues because we have an internal certificate authority which is trusted, but yet the tooling doesn't recognize the trusted certs at the system level. |
|
@deejross thanks for taking the time to provide feedback and use cases 😄
Yep, this one's definitely come up - it's the custom resolver stuff I referenced in my preceding comment, and that's discussed in #174. I think we're gravitating towards a decent solution here, albeit slowly 😄 That said, I think that right now, you should be able to solve your problem by including the
Oooh. This is a super important one that I'd totally not thought of before. Please please, post a separate issue with more details! 🙏 |
|
The only issue I have with specifying the |
Unfortunately (and confusingly), the problem is only secondarily knowing that it's a git repository. The primary problem is knowing, given an arbitrary path, which element represents the root of the project. Simply indicating While I understand that including the |
|
I've read through this issue and #174 , but they both cover a lot (mirroring, rewriting, custom resolvers, etc.) so hard to parse out the exact portion I'm interested in. Can anyone summarize the current thoughts/issues around the "simple" case of wanting to manage the imports/dependencies of a project that has imports from a private or GHE repository (such as In this case, the import path ( This would certainly add edge cases (what if a primary project and dependent project specify different resolvers for the same prefix, etc.) and would possibly require implementing a set of adapters/connectors in the core project (GHE, private GitHub repo, other source hosting mechanisms, etc.), but not sure that it's unreasonable. Will echo that I have observed that tooling like If |
|
Imagine this scenario... A developer is working in his local playpen, using 'go get' willy-nilly to pull packages from all other the world. However, when he is ready to submit his code to the corporate build pipeline, all of his imports will be fetched from internal mirrors of what is APPROVED for use by the corporate legal department, explicitly including specific branch/version numbers. The corporate build machines are even firewalled so they CANNOT contact the 'net. Everything used in a production build must be available from the internal mirrors. This should be something that can be accomplished without modifying the source in any way, either the developer's code or the code in the packages used. This is because his code has been code-reviewed, and the import statements have been validated against the list of approved packages. Will dep work as expected in this scenario? |
|
I've taken an initial look through the set of issues with an intention of looking at solutions for #174. It seems that providing some method of allowing authentication, could be an ideal solution. This would allow access to the go-import meta tag provided by GitHub Enterprise. If allowing private repositories is resolved that way, would it be possible that dep wouldn't actually need to solve that problem? If dep exposed some method of allowing augmentations to the http requests, maybe some package could be put together to determine if a url may need authentication, and attempt to collect the details from an external configuration on the system. Understandably if the configuration is unavailable or invalid, it would prevent access to the imported GHE repo. That however may not be an issue, as in most cases with an enterprise environment some level of initial configuration would need to be done on the development machine anyways. In that case you really can't blame dep for an error caused by a misconfiguration you don't control. Additionally adding some error checking for 4XX response codes may help in providing an alternate error message pointing towards authentication being the issue. |
|
Happy to announce that myself and @SteelPhase with the great guidance of @sdboyer are working towards #174, #175, and eventually #176. Had some good discussions at the hackathon at GopherCon 2017's community day and even got a decent amount of code written to support a package registry that can be hosted internally and may eventually be used to create a global registry. This opens a lot of doors for supporting not just private repos, but also adding security notices to releases and even allowing dep to notify you if the version of a package you're using has a known vulnerability. There's a host of other benefits from this approach and I look forward to having something soon that we can all take a look at and comment on. |
|
Yes, please, on the database! I would prefer the database be used INSTEAD OF .lock or whatever files that get checked in with the source. In an Enterprise environment, a database is much more useful than files scattered everywhere. Making the database choice 'pluggable' is also essential. It is highly unlikely your default will be anything like what we use internally, unless it is at least SQL-based for the metadata. Binaries are stored in something else, as well. At least if you make it work with generic Git (instead of assuming GitHub) for source, that part could work. |
|
I have a theory that almost all companies that want an internal registry fall into one of two categories
As a quick sanity check... If this comment doesn't get downvoted to oblivion, then maybe we should be thinking about this as more of a simple reference implementation than a truly scalable solution. |
|
Switching gears to package storage, the design discussion revolved around submitting |
|
In my experience you're exactly right. Each system comes along these days
with a basic tool but companies tend to not to want to run a separate
server for each new format/language and gravitate towards a heterogeneous
enterprise solution instead.
…On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Zev Goldstein ***@***.***> wrote:
I have a theory that almost all companies that want an internal registry
fall into one of two categories
1. Small enough to be ok with (and maybe prefer) simpler local file
system storage
2. Big enough to set up (and maybe prefer) a general purpose
repository manager like Nexus or Artifactory
As a quick sanity check...
*Please thumbs down this comment if your company doesn't fall into one of
these two categories*
If this comment doesn't get downvoted to oblivion, then maybe we should be
thinking about whatever we build here as more of a simple reference
implementation than a truly scalable solution.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#286 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD7CPGK8ne1gXj25kJS4UuSRRfBfQQ-ks5sRNeJgaJpZM4MTRv2>
.
|
I'm mostly trying to avoid putting my toe on the scales by staying out of this thread, but I feel the need to quickly note there that I think it is an error to equate the work @deejross and @SteelPhase are currently doing with the role served by e.g. artifactory or nexus. While there are certainly some possible areas of overlap, I'd say offhand there's at least as much that such a generic system is never likely to be able to provide. Most importantly, running such a service need not be mutually exclusive with, and in certain configurations could even be nicely complementary to, a generic platform. |
|
? Like what? Of course, since I have no idea what this repository is supposed to offer as an API, I can't say for sure, but it's hard to see what's being built here as significantly different, abit a customized simplified version of those products. You mean to say that the repository service being built offers an api that is more than just 'resolve this package' and 'download this package'? ...and perhaps, authenticate me? Like what? What 'go specific' features would it offer that something like nexus wouldn't? I mean, I'm not really a fan of nexus at all, but I thought that this whole repo thing was about implementing basically a custom version of that to play with? |
yeah, i should've known that chiming in would get this question 😄 i'll try to marshal my thoughts and compile a list of the relevant things, here.
FWIW, this has never been the frame from which i've been operating on this topic |
|
S3 may work for some, but we don't use it in our corporate environment. We use an internal High Availability (multiple servers, failover, etc., etc.) Artifactory setup (which seems to be very popular with corporations in general) for binaries, and Git (and still a lot of CVS) for source. Artifactory even comes with built-in facility to mirror GitHub areas, but ONLY the tarballs of the specific commits. That's fine for keeping a version around, but it does nothing for actually using it during a Go build... we would have to provide extra tooling to retrieve the tarball from Artifactory, expand it into the 'vendor' subdir, and then run 'go build' or whatever. I was really hoping for something a bit more transparent. In my playpen, I do 'go get ' and it goes out to the 'net and gets it. In the corporate build, whatever tool is used should have the same effect, but it should only get the package from the internal mirror, without me having to change URLs or anything else. If dep can make that happen (however it does it... via a database, or whatever), we will be happy campers. |
|
I think that the road to supporting a registry in dep can be quite simple by supporting a configurable, global http(s) URL to resolve from + an optional, separately configurable authentication key. As already alluded to in this thread, the registry will just have to contain frozen gz-tarballs for versioned dependencies, both for remote external dependencies and for locally deployed packages. Packages are usually stored in the registry in a similar way to how they are name-spaced in the 'vendor' directory, but with an additional tag/commit level. We successfully use the same approach in Artifactory for supporting CocoaPods, Composer, Bower and NPM dependencies - all based on source dependencies rather than binaries (npm has some exceptions, but the general concept still applies). |
|
Hi all, I have started coding the registry! As of now, it is very, very basic and only includes a couple of interfaces, but I hope it gets the idea of what we're going for across. Basically, pluggable binary and metadata storage with a REST API as the primary interface to the service. I haven't yet implemented any of the storage interfaces, but I will at least implement a local filesystem interface of some kind as a proof-of-concept. Additional backends will be easy to add after that. If you see any potential issues with the skeleton I have out there now, please let me know: https://github.com/deejross/dep-registry Thank you! |
|
@deejross @sdboyer Will this (at some point in planned, or at least not ruled out, future) support the following case:
Also.. and if I'm doing some development of This question, or at least similar ones, has been raised earlier in the comments, without any clear answer. |
yep, these are definitely the sort of cases we're figuring out how to cover.
local paths end up being a very different question, entirely separate from registries. gotta deal with those separately. this gist has one possible longer-term view, and https://github.com/GetStream/vg may help you in the meantime. |
Adds documentation about a second option to interact with private repositories, in particular for those who wants to use a Github Token either locally or in a CI System. Might help issues: - golang#174 - golang#286
Adds documentation about a second option to interact with private repositories, in particular for those who wants to use a Github Token either locally or in a CI System. Might help issues: - golang#174 - golang#286 Signed-off-by: Salim Afiune <[email protected]>
Adds documentation about a second option to interact with private repositories, in particular for those who wants to use a Github Token either locally or in a CI System. Might help issues: - golang#174 - golang#286 Signed-off-by: Salim Afiune <[email protected]>
|
1. Developer is writing code in playpen, and includes something like ‘import “github.com/Jordan-wright/email”’
2. Code works well, so developer pushes code for review.
3. Review goes well, so code is submitted, and is picked up by nightly builds.
4. Nightly build runs on machine(s) with firewall rules which PREVENT all external access, so ‘github.com’ is not directly accessible.
In this case, ‘deps’ would need to be able to resolve the import to an INTERNAL site, specified on the build system, preferably with multiple possibilities (command-line option, env var, etc.).
Whether it did this by replacing ‘github.com’, prefixing it, or whatever is of no consequence. There just needs to be a way to make it resolve to an internal system transparently to the code. All transitive dependencies should work transparently as well, with explanatory error messages when something cannot be found/resolved.
In other words, the code should work “as-is” with no modifications.
This scenario assumes a completely separate process for getting packages approved and populated on the internal system.
Stretch goals: Developers given a method to test what will happen when code is submitted for nightly builds. ‘deps’ supports a method of importing from external site, but uploading to internal staging area, independent of builds (like a common internal system separate from the developer’s playpen OR the nightly build machine(s)).
From: wade lee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 4:25
To: golang/dep <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Cooper <[email protected]>; Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [golang/dep] Support for private/enterprise patterns (#286)
EXTERNAL
who can give me a example ?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#286 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQmvXLoLwPmNFrHk2dlUCQkHKhYPGqZMks5s0XNagaJpZM4MTRv2>.
|
|
I believe I have a solution for private repos with ssh access, see PR #1717 |
Today,
dep's primary target is Go's public, FLOSS ecosystem. The public ecosystem is the necessary shared baseline use case that must be satisfied.Necessary...but not sufficient. Supporting private ecosystems and workflows not only makes things easier for Go users, but it can make it easier to convert private code to open source down the line.
There are a number of things enterprise organizations, or really any private organizations, may want:
It doesn't seem like these changes should be a blocker for initially merging dep into the go toolchain, though they should probably be in good shape by the time the go toolchain ships a version with dep in it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: