Allow testcontainers to have custom labels #725
Conversation
|
Created as part of the Gr8ConfEU 2018 Hackergarten 🙂 The Codacy error can be ignore. |
| * @param key label key | ||
| * @param value label value | ||
| */ | ||
| void addLabel(String key, String value); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would be okay with deprecating the old ones and not adding new ones.
| @@ -473,6 +476,7 @@ private void applyConfiguration(CreateContainerCmd createCommand) { | |||
| Map<String, String> labels = createCommand.getLabels(); | |||
| labels = new HashMap<>(labels != null ? labels : Collections.emptyMap()); | |||
| labels.putAll(DockerClientFactory.DEFAULT_LABELS); | |||
| labels.putAll(this.labels); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would do it before DockerClientFactory.DEFAULT_LABELS (they must be set to the values we provide), and also before createContainerCmdModifiers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I a developer really wants to overwrite the default labels he or she should be able to do so.
I tried overwriting the org.testcontainers label with false and left the session_id untouched - the containers still were removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sorry, IMO this is too dangerous.
Also, why would anyone override internal labels of Testcontainers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok - should we silently ignore org.testcontainers.* labels or throw an exception?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
an exception, plus an order change ( createContainerCmdModifiers are supposed to be low level and should be able to override any pre-set values)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As the university is closing down - I'll change this tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure! Thanks for your contribution :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bsideup done :) Please review all the changes, I will squash the commits when you give your okay ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! No need to squash, GitHub allows us to do it automatically 🎉
docs/usage/generic_containers.md
Outdated
| @ClassRule | ||
| public static GenericContainer alpine = | ||
| new GenericContainer("alpine:3.2") | ||
| .withExposedPorts(80) | ||
| .withEnv("MAGIC_NUMBER", "42") | ||
| .withLabel("our.custom", "label") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this use case (labels) is way too specific and should be documented separately (this examples shows common usage of the GenericContainer)
| * Create a container with a custom label for testing. | ||
| */ | ||
| @ClassRule | ||
| public static GenericContainer alpineCustomLabel = new GenericContainer("alpine:3.2") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please use try-with-resources, otherwise this container will be started for any test of this class
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, the container for this test can be as simple as:
new GenericContainer()
.withLabel("our.custom", "label")
.withCommand("ps")There was a problem hiding this comment.
So it behaves like every other container in this test class ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See createContainerCmdHookTest, copyToContainerTest and others
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see - much better :)
| Map<String, String> combinedLabels = new HashMap<>(); | ||
| combinedLabels.putAll(labels); | ||
| combinedLabels.putAll(DockerClientFactory.DEFAULT_LABELS); | ||
| combinedLabels.putAll(createCommandLabels); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DEFAULT_LABELS must always override :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I would change to:
if (createCommand.getLabels() != null) {
combinedLabels.putAll(createCommand.getLabels());
}to avoid a variable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the order should be user defined labels < createCommandLabels < DEFAULT_LABELS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes :) Sorry if I confused you about it before!
1. user defined labels 2. create command labels 3. DEFAULT_LABELS
|
Not sure why it failed on Travis - can you trigger it again? @bsideup |
|
@mgansler triggered! There is a flaky test, sorry :) |
|
I restarted again... |
|
And they passed - finally :D |
This may be useful for tools such as traefik which use docker labels for configuration