Skip to content

WIP: Golang workflow using "dep" dependency manager #47

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sanathkr
Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr commented Dec 5, 2018

Description of changes:
Starting with a design document to communicate what I am building. Will add implementation soon.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

The workflow does the following:
1. Check for manifest **Gopkg.toml**
2. Install dependencies using `dep ensure -v`
3. Compile using `GOOS=linux GOARCH=amd64 go build -ldflags="-s -w" -o $ARTIFACT_DIR/$HANDLER $SOURCE_DIR`
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One question I have is what are the goals for the sam build command. I would love to use a command like this in my workflow, but what if I already have well defined build steps as part of a Makefile in my repo? Make and Makefiles are a pretty common construct within Golang. Could we do something simpler where we just call make build? That way if developers want slightly different arguments, or multiple steps they can still use the sam build api. Maybe this make file could be generated if it is not present the first time.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@roryj Right now we want to support the dependency managers directly with good defaults (python, node, and ruby follow this) and then allow/expand to different arguments/multiple step workflows in the future.

@jfuss
Copy link
Contributor

jfuss commented Dec 21, 2018

#54 Was started from this and expanded upon it, also contains the implementation. Closing this in favor of that one.

@jfuss jfuss closed this Dec 21, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants