feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers #324

RomanNikitenko · 2024-01-17T09:05:05Z

What does this PR do?

Use:

Node.js provided by registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/nodejs-18
libbrotli library from the same image
LD_LIBRARY_PATH env variable to define additional shared libs place

to run VS Code in a user's ubi9-based container.

What issues does this PR fix?

How to test this PR?

Image	Workspace starts	Devfile registry link	Link to start a workspace
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/ubi:9.3-1476`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/ubi-minimal:9.3-1475`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/podman:9.3-8`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/perl-532:1-121`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/php-81:1-43`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/ruby-30:1-138`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/openjdk-21-runtime`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/nodejs-16:1-143`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/nodejs-18:1-84`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/nodejs-20:1-20`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/openjdk-11:1.17-1.1705602311`	+	-	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/openjdk-17:1.17-1`	+	Basic Spring Boot	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/go-toolset:1.19.13-4.1697647145`	+	Go Runtime	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/nodejs-16:latest`	+	Basic Node.js	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/python-39:1-161`	+	Python-Django	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/python-39:1-161`	+	Basic Python	click here
`registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/openjdk-17:1.18-2`	+	Quarkus Java	click here
`quay.io/eclipse/che-java11-maven:7.37.2`	No the cause of the problem	Vert.x Java	click here
`quay.io/jaegertracing/all-in-one:1.50`	No the cause of the problem	WildFly Bootable Jar	click here
`docker.io/alpine:3.19.0`	No	-	click here
`docker.io/node:18.18.2-alpine3.18`	+	-	click here

github-actions · 2024-01-17T09:05:19Z

Click here to review and test in web IDE:

github-actions · 2024-01-17T09:07:38Z

Pull Request Dev image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code-dev:pr-324-dev-amd64

github-actions · 2024-01-17T09:48:47Z

Pull Request Dev image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code-dev:pr-324-dev-amd64

github-actions · 2024-01-17T10:33:31Z

Pull Request Che-Code image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code:pr-324-amd64

github-actions · 2024-01-18T16:40:16Z

Pull Request Dev image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code-dev:pr-324-dev-amd64

github-actions · 2024-01-18T17:23:36Z

Pull Request Che-Code image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code:pr-324-amd64

l0rd

I have tested this PR vscode image on workspaces using alpine, busybox, docker, fedora, golang, openjdk, ubi8, ubi9 and ubuntu base images and if worked on most of them (docker.io/alpine:3.19.0, docker.io/busybox:1.36.1, docker.io/docker:24.0.6-dind are still failing). This is an important improvement compared to what we get trying current vs code image.

Some improvments (for later PRs) could be:

support recent alpine with new version of musl (that should fix quay.io/jaegertracing/all-in-one:1.50 too)
support images that don't have neither openssl nor rpm (looking for /usr/lib/libcrypto* for example)
libc-ubi8 and libc-ubi9 checode should be renamed libc-v1 and libc-v3 as they run on any image using libc, not just on UBI.
default che-code should be libc-ubi9/libc-v3 instead of the libc-ubi8 as new images will all have the new version of libc.

RomanNikitenko · 2024-01-23T21:47:46Z

@l0rd
thank you very much for testing!

I would like to clarify some points for myself:

support recent alpine with new version of musl (that should fix quay.io/jaegertracing/all-in-one:1.50 too)

It's possible to apply the improvement for the che-code, but there is a problem for the downstream.
AFAIK - at the moment we don't have alpine-based assembly for the downstream as there is no base image that we can use for the productization process.
So, there is a problem for images, like:

quay.io/jaegertracing/all-in-one:1.50
docker.io/alpine:3.19.0
docker.io/docker:24.0.6-dind

=====================

default che-code should be libc-ubi9/libc-v3 instead of the libc-ubi8 as new images will all have the new version of libc.

I'm afraid I didn't get what do you mean here:

as far as I understand the editor-image contains both: ubi8 and ubi9-based assemblies
at starting a workspace we just use one of them - it depends on the user's container for running
so - what default che-code should be libc-ubi9/libc-v3 means

=====================

libc-ubi8 and libc-ubi9 checode should be renamed libc-v1 and libc-v3 as they run on any image using libc, not just on UBI.

I'm not sure about they run on any image using libc.
For example, we build ubi8- based assembly that relies on (GNU libc) 2.28, but user's container contains (GNU libc) 2.17.
or
Node.js relies on /lib64/libstdc++.so.6, the file exists in the user's container, but user gets something like: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version GLIBCXX_3.4.20 not found - I'm not sure that LD_LIBRARY_PATH can resolve this problem.

So, I consider ubi8 and ubi9-based assemblies as a set of libraries that are required for running Node.js and some VS Code dependencies in a user's ubi8/ubi9-based container.
Like:

we build VS Code in the ubi8 container - then it should work in another ubi8-based container as both of them have similar shared libs(version of libs)

l0rd · 2024-01-24T00:31:15Z

It's possible to apply the improvement for the che-code, but there is a problem for the downstream.

Right. There is no request to support alpine downstream. It's an upstream only issue.

it depends on the user's container for running. so - what default che-code should be libc-ubi9/libc-v3 means?

What I mean is the default when the openssl version is unknown. When the bash script fails to figure out the openssl version (that happens on the ubuntu and busybox images for example) then it currently defaults to the ubi8 assembly. If we change that, and use ubi9 in case of unknown openssl version, any recent ubuntu-based image will work out of the box.

we build VS Code in the ubi8 container - then it should work in another ubi8-based container as both of them have similar shared libs(version of libs)

Does it matter if the assembly has been built in a ubi8, a fedora or an ubuntu container? che-code built on ubi8 works on images that have openssl-v1 (e.g. openjdk) and che-code built on ubi9 works on any image with openssl-v3 (ubuntu, golang, fedora).

RomanNikitenko · 2024-01-24T09:54:16Z

What I mean is the default when the openssl version is unknown. When the bash script fails to figure out the openssl version (that happens on the ubuntu and busybox images for example) then it currently defaults to the ubi8 assembly. If we change that, and use ubi9 in case of unknown openssl version, any recent ubuntu-based image will work out of the box.

Maybe it's true for ubuntu, but not for the mentioned above busybox.
I just tested docker.io/busybox:1.36.1 for both: ubi8 and ubi9 assembly.

There is the same error:

So, for the docker.io/busybox:1.36.1 it doesn't matter - ubi8 or ubi9 - we should provide not only brotli, but also libz.
All libs required by Node.js must be present in a user's container:

RomanNikitenko · 2024-01-24T10:00:15Z

Does it matter if the assembly has been built in a ubi8, a fedora or an ubuntu container? che-code built on ubi8 works on images that have openssl-v1 (e.g. openjdk) and che-code built on ubi9 works on any image with openssl-v3 (ubuntu, golang, fedora).

I was not able to run Node.js in the quay.io/wildfly/wildfly-centos7:26.1 using both: ubi8 and ubi9-based assemblies:

So, I'm not sure we can guarantee that Che-Code can start in any user's container.
It really depends on set of shared libs and their versions in a user's container.
That's why I would start from support for ubi8 and ubi9-based containers.

RomanNikitenko · 2024-01-24T10:39:44Z

@l0rd thank you for the feedback! It's really helpful!

@l0rd @ibuziuk
So, does it make sense to improve the following within the current PR:

add libz related files to both: ubi8 and ubi9 assemblies
add libbrotli files to ubi8 assembly (the same way as it's done for ubi9 in the current PR)
use ubi9 based assembly when the openssl version is unknown

The changes look simple, after applying them I could test it for my table in the PR description.
But I'm not aware what set of images was tested by Mario for the current PR - it makes sense to test them again after updating my PR...

ibuziuk · 2024-01-24T11:07:29Z

That's why I would start from support for ubi8 and ubi9-based containers.

I believe it makes sense to start with supporting ubi8 and ubi 9 and merge this PR, but we need to create follow up issue -
for cases that @l0rd described in #324 (review)

The ultimate goal / story - As a User I want to specify any popular image in the devfile and use it in my CDE

Also, please create separate issues for 2 devfile.io devfiles that are currently failing. In the next sprint it would be great to finalize the following epic - eclipse-che/che#20251

But I'm not aware what set of images was tested by Mario for the current PR - it makes sense to test them again after updating my PR...

I think the scripts for testing various images are part of https://github.com/l0rd/cloud-dev-images

l0rd · 2024-01-24T11:45:53Z

@RomanNikitenko I approved this PR so from my point of view that's ok to merge as it is.

At some point we should support ubuntu-based images (that looks easy, it's just changing the script to use the opensslv3 assembly rather than the opensslv1 when the openssl version is unknown) and alpine-based images (that seams a little bit harder: introduce a new musl assembly that supports openssl v3).

busybox is NOT an ubuntu-based or alpine-based image and it's not a priority at all so you can ignore it.

github-actions · 2024-01-24T11:49:16Z

Pull Request Dev image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code-dev:pr-324-dev-amd64

github-actions · 2024-01-24T12:44:03Z

Pull Request Che-Code image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code:pr-324-amd64

Signed-off-by: Roman Nikitenko <rnikiten@redhat.com>

github-actions · 2024-02-09T13:17:31Z

Pull Request Dev image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code-dev:pr-324-dev-amd64

github-actions · 2024-02-09T14:16:37Z

Pull Request Che-Code image published:
👉 quay.io/che-incubator-pull-requests/che-code:pr-324-amd64

RomanNikitenko · 2024-02-12T20:33:23Z

@azatsarynnyy
it looks like I'm not able to merge the current PR due to Required status of the build (libc, amd64) check.
so, could you update the repo settings?

azatsarynnyy · 2024-02-13T08:58:41Z

@azatsarynnyy it looks like I'm not able to merge the current PR due to Required status of the build (libc, amd64) check. so, could you update the repo settings?

@RomanNikitenko done

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:35:17Z

Build 3.13 :: code_3.x/1285: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:35:18Z

Build 3.12 :: code_3.12/25: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:37:30Z

Build 3.12 :: sync-to-downstream_3.12/107: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:38:18Z

Build 3.13 :: sync-to-downstream_3.x/6240: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:41:11Z

Build 3.12 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.12/104: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T12:53:33Z

Build 3.13 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.x/6167: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T14:57:05Z

Build 3.12 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.12/104:

code : 3.12 :: Failed in 58907335 : code-rhel8-3.12-61
FAILURE: 1925588 - osbs.osbs_http - DEBUG - cleaning up==> 58907335:DEFAULT:osbs-client.log: <==; copied to quay

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T18:47:11Z

Build 3.13 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.x/6168: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T23:04:21Z

Build 3.13 :: push-latest-container-to-quay_3.x/4367: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T23:11:40Z

Build 3.13 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.x/6168:

code : 3.x :: Build 58915236 : quay.io/devspaces/code-rhel8:3.13-15
SUCCESS; copied to quay; /DS_CI/push-latest-container-to-quay_3.x/4367 triggered

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T23:17:05Z

Build 3.13 :: update-digests_3.x/5869: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-13T23:17:53Z

Build 3.13 :: update-digests_3.x/5869:

No new images detected: nothing to do!

devstudio-release · 2024-02-14T06:20:52Z

Build 3.13 :: code_3.x/1286: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-14T06:27:18Z

Build 3.13 :: sync-to-downstream_3.x/6243: Console, Changes, Git Data

devstudio-release · 2024-02-14T07:58:45Z

Build 3.13 :: get-sources-rhpkg-container-build_3.x/6171: Console, Changes, Git Data

RomanNikitenko changed the title ~~Ubi9 test~~ feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers Jan 23, 2024

l0rd approved these changes Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

ibuziuk approved these changes Jan 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

RomanNikitenko force-pushed the ubi9_test branch from 526e234 to bc35c20 Compare January 24, 2024 11:46

RomanNikitenko mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2024

feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers #317

Closed

RomanNikitenko marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2024 13:50

RomanNikitenko requested review from azatsarynnyy and vitaliy-guliy as code owners January 24, 2024 13:50

azatsarynnyy approved these changes Jan 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

RomanNikitenko mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2024

Can't use universal-developer-image:ubi8-latest with sqlite eclipse-che/che#22752

Closed

feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers

6e51e9d

Signed-off-by: Roman Nikitenko <rnikiten@redhat.com>

RomanNikitenko force-pushed the ubi9_test branch from bc35c20 to 6e51e9d Compare February 9, 2024 13:14

ibuziuk mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2024

feat: Support ubi9-based containers for running VS Code editor redhat-developer/devspaces-images#547

Merged

RomanNikitenko merged commit 64ac009 into main Feb 13, 2024
7 checks passed

RomanNikitenko deleted the ubi9_test branch February 13, 2024 12:34

RomanNikitenko mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2024

Check VS Code tests for the ubi9 based image #315

Closed

RomanNikitenko mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2024

Provide Node.js for running VS Code #250

Closed

This was referenced Feb 13, 2024

Nodejs from sources #258

Closed

Static nodejs #263

Closed

RomanNikitenko mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2024

Support running VS Code in the containers that don't include the pre-requisites eclipse-che/che#21778

Closed

feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers #324

feat: Support running VS Code in ubi9-based containers #324

Conversation

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

What does this PR do?

What issues does this PR fix?

How to test this PR?

github-actions bot commented Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 17, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 17, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 17, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2024

l0rd left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 23, 2024

l0rd commented Jan 24, 2024

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 24, 2024

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 24, 2024 • edited Loading

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 24, 2024 • edited Loading

ibuziuk commented Jan 24, 2024 • edited Loading

l0rd commented Jan 24, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 24, 2024

github-actions bot commented Jan 24, 2024

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2024

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2024

RomanNikitenko commented Feb 12, 2024

azatsarynnyy commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 13, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 14, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 14, 2024

devstudio-release commented Feb 14, 2024

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

l0rd left a comment •

edited

Loading

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RomanNikitenko commented Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ibuziuk commented Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading