Check newer docker-java #1007
Check newer docker-java #1007
Conversation
|
Nice, thanks @KostyaSha! It looks like we have some compilation failures (modifies API?) but we can look into these. Sent with GitHawk |
|
"proxy" methods from CreateContainer were removed. The idea is to use setters/getters directly on HostConfig. But i see that fluency bit struggling. If it's problematic i can add parent object reference into HostConfig constructor. That will help fluently navigate, firstly need to check how much things need to be changed here. |
|
@KostyaSha I think this makes sense, and I've been able to refactor our code so that it compiles and works again 😄. Basically, anywhere where we currently just modify a I'd just like to have a bit more of a play with this over the weekend, because this might overlap a little bit with some separate changes we were thinking of making, but it'll probably be fine. Thanks, BTW, for letting us know proactively about this change! 🙇 |
|
I've pushed some changes to this PR branch - I hope that's OK with you. Quite a few changes, but no big deal really! |
|
cool, thanks. People started sending PRs for new bugfixes so i will do new releases soon |
| @@ -20,8 +21,8 @@ | |||
| // memory { | |||
| @Rule | |||
| public GenericContainer memoryLimitedRedis = new GenericContainer<>("redis:3.0.2") | |||
| .withCreateContainerCmdModifier(cmd -> cmd.withMemory((long) 4 * 1024 * 1024)) | |||
| .withCreateContainerCmdModifier(cmd -> cmd.withMemorySwap((long) 4 * 1024 * 1024)); | |||
| .withCreateContainerCmdModifier(cmd -> cmd.withHostConfig(new HostConfig().withMemory((long) 4 * 1024 * 1024))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for new you can use com.github.dockerjava.api.model.HostConfig#newHostConfig the only problem with thi method is that it overrides fully hostconfig internals define before
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If you believe this is a mistake, please reply to this comment to keep it open. If there isn't one already, a PR to fix or at least reproduce the problem in a test case will always help us get back on track to tackle this. |
|
This issue has been automatically closed due to inactivity. We apologise if this is still an active problem for you, and would ask you to re-open the issue if this is the case. |
No description provided.