Use latest compose specs

[lucasfcnunes]

What type of PR is this?

• Refactor

Description

Commits to improve/refactor/update the Redash project to current docker specs.

How is this tested?

• Manually

make build runs as always.

Related Tickets & Documents

• https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-application-model/#the-compose-file (why docker-compose.yml -> compose.yaml)
• About version (deprecated) in compose file compose-spec/compose-spec#352
• https://www.docker.com/blog/announcing-compose-v2-general-availability/
• https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#compose-file

[lucasfcnunes]

Build failing because of CircleCI's docker [compose] version (v1)?

Building server
Sending build context to Docker daemon  14.15MB
Error response from daemon: Dockerfile parse error line 12: Unknown flag: mount
ERROR: Service 'server' failed to build : Build failed

[guidopetri]

Hi @lucasfcnunes , thanks for your contribution! We've updated a lot of things now that we're community-driven so would you mind rebasing off master to re-run the CI, as well as updating merge conflicts?

Additionally, if you could split up the build caching changes into a separate PR, that would be ideal - that way we can keep the required changes to comply with recommendations separate from complex Dockerfile changes.

[justinclift]

As a data point, we've updated to [email protected] a few weeks ago (241dcfa), so probably best to use that version here too.

[justinclift]

Looking over this PR, it's probably going to need very manual re-creation as we've been changing so many things in the Dockerfile over the last few weeks.

Not impossible in any way, but likely just pretty time consuming.

[guidopetri]

Agreed, that's why I think it's better splitting up into more "style" and more "feature" type changes.

[justinclift]

Good thinking. 😄

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (49a5e74) 63.37% compared to head (b65819c) 63.37%.

❗ Current head b65819c differs from pull request most recent head 84752b4. Consider uploading reports for the commit 84752b4 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #5854   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   63.37%   63.37%           
=======================================
  Files         162      162           
  Lines       13170    13170           
  Branches     1819     1819           
=======================================
  Hits         8347     8347           
  Misses       4532     4532           
  Partials      291      291           

[guidopetri]

@lucasfcnunes thanks for updating! I'm not a huge fan personally of changing the docker compose filename, but I see it's the preferred standard now (why change what isn't broken?). It seems we need to update something else on the CI if we want to rename the files though, otherwise the CI won't pass.

[lucasfcnunes]

@lucasfcnunes thanks for updating! I'm not a huge fan personally of changing the docker compose filename, but I see it's the preferred standard now (why change what isn't broken?). It seems we need to update something else on the CI if we want to rename the files though, otherwise the CI won't pass.

@guidopetri I think it's expected as it's using the ci.yml from master branch, not sure.
*These lines prevent this.

[guidopetri]

Ah, I see, that's new to me! Thanks for explaining. Let's go ahead and merge then, and hopefully it passes in master. Thanks again for your contribution!

[lucasfcnunes]

Seems to be working as expected https://github.com/getredash/redash/actions/runs/7777381717/workflow#L33

What I don't understand is how this PR was "merged" into master but is still open...

[guidopetri]

Me neither, I think it was a github bug. I'm going to close it, but thanks again!