New GitHub workflow to continue our images on Docker Hub #36047

soehms · 2023-08-08T16:50:43Z

This PR implements a GitHub workflow which sould establish a continuation of the Docker images in the Sage Docker Hub repositories. Therefore, it aims to replace $SAGE_ROOT/.gitlab-ci.yml which has been used formerly for this purpose but isn't working any more (see sage-devel-thread fom April 5th).

The new worklfow uses the same $SAGE_ROOT/docker/Dockerfile as SAGE_ROOT/.gitlab-ci.yml and is based on docker/build-push-action@v4.

Concerning the images placed in the sagemath-dev repository you should note the following difference to the releases built before 9.8: They are no longer build on target sagemath-dev since this causes a "No space left on device" error (see the log-file of a correspondig test run). Instead they are build on target make-build, now. I think the main difference is the missing build of documentation.

But, I don't know if this fits with the idea of this repository. If we really need target sagemath-dev then maybe something like the free disk space step of job linux in .github/workflows/docker.yml would help to get it run through. What about to just pull ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-ubuntu-jammy-standard-with-targets and push it to sagemath-dev on Docker Hub. Please post here what you think would be the preferred way. Until this is not clearified I ommit setting the tags develop and latest in sagemath-dev (note that these tags still have ongoing pulls).

The workflow does not use docker/metadata-action@v4 as we need to distinguish between latest and develop tags in the Docker Hub repositories. Furthermore, if the workflow is triggered manually, this should result in the same tags as when triggered by pushing a new release tag (metadata would take the branch name).

The reason why the worklflow is split into two jobs is because the time limit of 6 hours per job was exeeded in a former test with just one job.

I've tested the new workflow in my fork repository using the workflow_dispatch (see the corresponding log-file). The resulting tags on Docker Hub are:

In order that this worked I had to set the secrets secrets.DOCKERHUB_USERNAME and secrets.DOCKERHUB_TOKEN in my fork of the GitHub repository. Thus, after this PR is merged a maintainer has to set this secrets on the upstream repository.

📝 Checklist

The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
I have created tests covering the changes.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

saraedum · 2023-08-09T09:57:24Z

docker/Dockerfile


 ################################################################################
 # Image containing the run-time dependencies for Sage                          #
 ################################################################################
-FROM ubuntu:jammy as run-time-dependencies
+FROM ubuntu:latest as run-time-dependencies


I would not use latest here. In the past things usually broke when ubuntu upgraded their "latest" tag.

Thanks! I will change that in the next commit!

.github/workflows/push_to_docker_hub.yml

saraedum · 2023-08-09T09:58:48Z

.github/workflows/push_to_docker_hub.yml

+      - name: Set up QEMU
+        uses: docker/setup-qemu-action@v2
+


Why do we need QEMU here and below?

Why do we need QEMU here and below?

It's there from the master I used. I will drop it in the next commit.

saraedum · 2023-08-09T10:00:26Z

I am happy with these changes if they make the docker build work again. (I had some minor comments, but nothing of much substance.)

Co-authored-by: Julian Rüth <[email protected]>

soehms · 2023-08-09T17:03:10Z

I am happy with these changes if they make the docker build work again. (I had some minor comments, but nothing of much substance.)

Thanks for the review!

Can you please elaborate on my (implicit) question from the paragraph starting with

But, I don't know if this fits with the idea of this repository...

More precisely, will it be o.K. to change the meaning of the sagemath-dev repository since I'm now pushing target make-build there instead of target sagemath-dev formerly? Moreover, will it be o.K. to push make-build as tags develop resp. latest there, as well? I see that there are still pulls on these tags (maybe from some out of date-CI-job). But perhaps that will change some expectations.

github-actions · 2023-08-09T18:16:37Z

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit b0d14d2; changes) is ready! 🎉

mkoeppe · 2023-08-13T17:10:47Z

Let's merge it so it can run automatically on the release.

soehms · 2023-08-15T17:23:18Z

Let's merge it so it can run automatically on the release.

Thank you very much! I agree: the sooner it's up and running, the better. I will open a follow-up PR in September to cover @saraedum 's suggestions. Do we already have Docker Hub secrets in the upstream repository?

saraedum · 2023-08-16T11:46:22Z

But, I don't know if this fits with the idea of this repository...

I have to admit I don't really understand your questions. The meaning of the repositories and tags is explained in the README at https://hub.docker.com/r/sagemath/sagemath-dev/.

Does that answer the question about develop and latest?

So, what's in sagemath-dev exactly? It's a bit hard to say. It was meant as a development environment but I don't think it was ever much used for that purpose. So some CI jobs use it because you can patch SageMath and quickly rebuild and (more importantly) sage -i is fully functional unlike in the sagemath repository.

Does sage -i still work in your sagemath-dev?

soehms · 2023-08-17T16:41:11Z

But, I don't know if this fits with the idea of this repository...

I have to admit I don't really understand your questions. The meaning of the repositories and tags is explained in the README at https://hub.docker.com/r/sagemath/sagemath-dev/.

Yes, I've seen that.

Does that answer the question about develop and latest?

No! My point about the tags relates to your answer below. Since they're still in use, I've simply avoided setting them before realizing how much current behavior will change.

So, what's in sagemath-dev exactly? It's a bit hard to say. It was meant as a development environment but I don't think it was ever much used for that purpose. So some CI jobs use it because you can patch SageMath and quickly rebuild and (more importantly) sage -i is fully functional unlike in the sagemath repository.

Does sage -i still work in your sagemath-dev?

In principle it works, but unfortunately a large part of Sage had to be rebuilt. Is this what the earlier sagemath-dev images should have avoided? If you're currently running a container on sagemath-dev:9.7, a similar rebuild of Sage will be performed even before you reach the bash prompt. So it seems that there will be no real regression on this point.

My suggestion: After my vacation (around mid-September) I manually replace the tag develop with the current image that the new job pushed. If there are no objections after a few weeks, I will adjust the GitHub workflow accordingly.

…r Hub   This PR implements a GitHub workflow which sould establish a continuation of the Docker images in the Sage Docker Hub repositories. Therefore, it aims to replace `$SAGE_ROOT/.gitlab-ci.yml` which has been used formerly for this purpose but isn't working any more (see [sage- devel-thread fom April 5th](https://groups.google.com/g/sage- devel/c/eJ_OicQXM8Y)). The new worklfow uses the same `$SAGE_ROOT/docker/Dockerfile` as `SAGE_ROOT/.gitlab-ci.yml` and is based on [docker/build-push- action@v4](https://github.com/docker/build-push-action). Concerning the images placed in the [sagemath-dev repository](https://hub.docker.com/r/sagemath/sagemath-dev) you should note the following difference to the releases built before 9.8: They are no longer build on target `sagemath-dev` since this causes a "No space left on device" error (see the [log- file](https://github.com/soehms/sage/actions/runs/5694284990) of a correspondig test run). Instead they are build on target `make-build`, now. I think the main difference is the missing build of documentation. But, I don't know if this fits with the idea of this repository. If we really need target `sagemath-dev` then maybe something like the `free disk space` step of job `linux` in `.github/workflows/docker.yml` would help to get it run through. What about to just pull `ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-ubuntu-jammy-standard-with-targets` and push it to `sagemath-dev` on Docker Hub. Please post here what you think would be the preferred way. Until this is not clearified I ommit setting the tags `develop` and `latest` in `sagemath-dev` (note that these tags still have ongoing pulls). The workflow does not use [docker/metadata- action@v4](https://github.com/docker/metadata-action#latest-tag) as we need to distinguish between `latest` and `develop` tags in the Docker Hub repositories. Furthermore, if the workflow is triggered manually, this should result in the same tags as when triggered by pushing a new release tag (`metadata` would take the branch name). The reason why the worklflow is split into two jobs is because the time limit of 6 hours per job was exeeded in a former test with just one job. I've tested the new workflow in my fork repository using the `workflow_dispatch` (see the corresponding [log- file](https://github.com/soehms/sage/actions/runs/5795823327)). The resulting tags on Docker Hub are: * [sagemath/sagemath:10.1.beta9](https://hub.docker.com/layers/sagemath/ sagemath/10.1.beta9/images/sha256- 4c00148d6e6c2134728b0a74d0e778281d64a8f0ff9b49ade0b9af68de758f12?context =repo) * [sagemath/sagemath:develop](https://hub.docker.com/layers/sagemath/sag emath/develop/images/sha256- 4c00148d6e6c2134728b0a74d0e778281d64a8f0ff9b49ade0b9af68de758f12?context =repo) * [sagemath/sagemath- dev:10.1.beta9](https://hub.docker.com/layers/sagemath/sagemath-dev/10.1 .beta9/images/sha256- d5071d0cb683edf9f22d19c2c26d5d580dc4e05823c755bfce85c744b557fd14?context =repo) In order that this worked I had to set the secrets `secrets.DOCKERHUB_USERNAME` and `secrets.DOCKERHUB_TOKEN` in my fork of the GitHub repository. Thus, after this PR is merged a maintainer has to set this secrets on the upstream repository.    ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36047 Reported by: Sebastian Oehms Reviewer(s): Julian Rüth, Sebastian Oehms

soehms · 2023-09-12T17:57:48Z

My suggestion: After my vacation (around mid-September) I manually replace the tag develop with the current image that the new job pushed. If there are no objections after a few weeks, I will adjust the GitHub workflow accordingly.

This is done, now. I've triggered the docker images for 10.1, 10.2.beta1 and 10.2.beta2 manually again via my fork repository.

It seems that we still don't have the DockerHub secrets in the GitHub sagemath/sage repository. The workflow has been triggered for all beta releases since10.2.beta0 but all runs failed at login (for example in the 10.2.beta2 log-file):

Run docker/login-action@v2
  with:
    ecr: auto
    logout: true
  env:
    TAG_NAME: 10.2.beta2
    TAG: sagemath/sagemath-dev:10.2.beta2
    TAG_LIST: sagemath/sagemath-dev:10.2.beta2
Error: Username and password required

Since I can't set the secrets, can please one of you, @saraedum @mkoeppe, do that?

saraedum · 2023-09-14T09:48:56Z

I added some secrets. Can you try if that works?

soehms · 2023-09-14T16:49:10Z

I added some secrets. Can you try if that works?

Thanks a lot! Unfortunately I can't even trigger the workflow manually in the sagemath/sage repository (by missing permissions). Maybe you can do it here. In my fork repository it looks like this:

If the develop branch is not pre-selected you should change the selection accordingly and than push the button.

But, if you have trouble, we can just wait until the next beta release (push --tags event). Two secrets are needed: DOCKERHUB_USERNAME = sagemath and a Docker Hub token in DOCKERHUB_TOKEN. If these are set, it should work.

soehms · 2023-09-17T05:48:53Z

I added some secrets. Can you try if that works?

Thanks again! The login is working now (see the logfile of the last beta release). The reason that the workflow did fail again was a problem with building scipy-1.11.2 (see this post on sage-release).

soehms · 2023-10-02T06:53:33Z

I added some secrets. Can you try if that works?

Thanks again! The login is working now (see the logfile of the last beta release). The reason that the workflow did fail again was a problem with building scipy-1.11.2 (see this post on sage-release).

Now, with 10.2.beta5 we had the first successful auto-generated images on Docker Hub by this workflow (see for example sagemath/sagemath:develop)

@saraedum

This is a follow up PR of sagemath#36047. It does the following: 1. It fixes a wrong sort order for the tags that would cause a wrong tag for stable releases 2. It enables the push of the `sagemath-dev:develop` and `sagemath- dev:latest` tags according to my suggestion in sagemath#36047 (comment) 3. It implements improvements suggested by @saraedum in sagemath#36047. 4. It contains the upgrades from the auto-generated *dependabot- branches* for the Docker Hub GitHub App (`dependabot/github_actions/docker/...`). Thus, as soon as this PR is merged, these auto-generated branches can be deleted by a maintainer. Still open is this suggestion from sagemath#36047 (comment): > Could we delete the gitlab setup in this PR as well? It's not working anymore anyway @saraedum What should be deleted explicitly? `.gitlab-ci.yml` and the scripts used by it excludingly (`.ci/protect-secrets.sh`, `.ci/describe- system.sh`)? Other sources? ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36385 Reported by: Sebastian Oehms Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe, Sebastian Oehms

@saraedum

This is a follow up PR of sagemath#36047. It does the following: 1. It fixes a wrong sort order for the tags that would cause a wrong tag for stable releases 2. It enables the push of the `sagemath-dev:develop` and `sagemath- dev:latest` tags according to my suggestion in sagemath#36047 (comment) 3. It implements improvements suggested by @saraedum in sagemath#36047. 4. It contains the upgrades from the auto-generated *dependabot- branches* for the Docker Hub GitHub App (`dependabot/github_actions/docker/...`). Thus, as soon as this PR is merged, these auto-generated branches can be deleted by a maintainer. Still open is this suggestion from sagemath#36047 (comment): > Could we delete the gitlab setup in this PR as well? It's not working anymore anyway @saraedum What should be deleted explicitly? `.gitlab-ci.yml` and the scripts used by it excludingly (`.ci/protect-secrets.sh`, `.ci/describe- system.sh`)? Other sources? ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36385 Reported by: Sebastian Oehms Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe, Sebastian Oehms

@saraedum

This is a follow up PR of sagemath#36047. It does the following: 1. It fixes a wrong sort order for the tags that would cause a wrong tag for stable releases 2. It enables the push of the `sagemath-dev:develop` and `sagemath- dev:latest` tags according to my suggestion in sagemath#36047 (comment) 3. It implements improvements suggested by @saraedum in sagemath#36047. 4. It contains the upgrades from the auto-generated *dependabot- branches* for the Docker Hub GitHub App (`dependabot/github_actions/docker/...`). Thus, as soon as this PR is merged, these auto-generated branches can be deleted by a maintainer. Still open is this suggestion from sagemath#36047 (comment): > Could we delete the gitlab setup in this PR as well? It's not working anymore anyway @saraedum What should be deleted explicitly? `.gitlab-ci.yml` and the scripts used by it excludingly (`.ci/protect-secrets.sh`, `.ci/describe- system.sh`)? Other sources? ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36385 Reported by: Sebastian Oehms Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe, Sebastian Oehms

workflow_docker_hub initial

478c0ef

soehms requested review from saraedum and fchapoton August 8, 2023 16:51

soehms added c: docker s: needs review labels Aug 8, 2023

soehms mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2023

.devcontainer/develop-docker-sagemath #35976

Open

saraedum reviewed Aug 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/push_to_docker_hub.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

saraedum reviewed Aug 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

Drop header comment

b0d14d2

Co-authored-by: Julian Rüth <[email protected]>

mkoeppe added p: critical / 2 s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Aug 13, 2023

vbraun merged commit 8f938b7 into sagemath:develop Aug 27, 2023
12 of 14 checks passed

github-actions bot removed the s: positive review label Aug 27, 2023

mkoeppe added this to the sage-10.2 milestone Aug 27, 2023

soehms mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2023

Fixes for the push_to_docker_hub workflow #36385

Merged

5 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

New GitHub workflow to continue our images on Docker Hub #36047

New GitHub workflow to continue our images on Docker Hub #36047

soehms commented Aug 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

saraedum Aug 9, 2023

soehms Aug 9, 2023

saraedum Aug 9, 2023

soehms Aug 9, 2023

saraedum commented Aug 9, 2023

soehms commented Aug 9, 2023

github-actions bot commented Aug 9, 2023

mkoeppe commented Aug 13, 2023

soehms commented Aug 15, 2023

saraedum commented Aug 16, 2023

soehms commented Aug 17, 2023

soehms commented Sep 12, 2023

saraedum commented Sep 14, 2023

soehms commented Sep 14, 2023

soehms commented Sep 17, 2023

soehms commented Oct 2, 2023

New GitHub workflow to continue our images on Docker Hub #36047

New GitHub workflow to continue our images on Docker Hub #36047

Conversation

soehms commented Aug 8, 2023 • edited Loading

📝 Checklist

⌛ Dependencies

saraedum Aug 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

soehms Aug 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

saraedum Aug 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

soehms Aug 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

saraedum commented Aug 9, 2023

soehms commented Aug 9, 2023

github-actions bot commented Aug 9, 2023

mkoeppe commented Aug 13, 2023

soehms commented Aug 15, 2023

saraedum commented Aug 16, 2023

soehms commented Aug 17, 2023

soehms commented Sep 12, 2023

saraedum commented Sep 14, 2023

soehms commented Sep 14, 2023

soehms commented Sep 17, 2023

soehms commented Oct 2, 2023

soehms commented Aug 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading