| |
| ▲ | Storment33 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with #2, I meant more if you are calling out to something that is not a task runner(Make, Taskfile, Just etc) or a shell script thats a bit of a smell to me. E.g. I have seen people call out to Python scripts etc and it concerns me. | | |
| ▲ | masfuerte 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My software runs on Windows, Linux and MacOS. The same Python testing code runs on all three platforms. I mostly dislike Python but I can't think of anything better for this use case. | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You might consider Deno with Typescript... it's a single exe runtime, with a self-update mechanism (deno upgrade) and can run typescript/javascript files that directly reference the repository/http/modules that it needs and doesn't require a separate install step for dependency management. I've been using it for most of my local and environment scripting since relatively early on. | |
| ▲ | Storment33 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't touch Windows so I would not know. > The same Python testing code runs on all three platforms. I have no objections to Python being used for testing, I use it myself for the end to end tests in my projects. I just don't think Python as a build script/task runner is a good idea, see below where I got Claude to convert one of my open source projects for an example. |
| |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's interesting because #1 is still suggesting a shell script, it's just suggesting a better shell to script. | | |
| ▲ | Storment33 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had no idea 'pwsh' was PowerShell. Personally not interested, maybe if your a Microsoft shop or something then yeah. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "pwsh" is often used as the short-hand for modern cross-platform PowerShell to better differentiate it from the old Windows-only PowerShell. I think pwsh is worth exploring. It is cross-platform. It is post-Python and the Python mantra that "~~code~~ scripts are read more often than they are written". It provides a lot of nice tools out of the box. It's built in an "object-oriented" way, resembling Python and owing much to C#. When done well the "object-oriented" way provides a number of benefits over "dumb text pipes" that shells like bash were built on. It is easy to extend with C# and a few other languages, should you need to extend it. I would consider not dismissing it off hand without trying it just because Microsoft built it and/or that it was for a while Windows-only. | |
| ▲ | Rohansi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's actually a pretty good shell! FOSS and cross-platform, too. |
|
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Huh? Who cares if the script is .sh, .bash, Makefile, Justfile, .py, .js or even .php? If it works it works, as long as you can run it locally, it'll be good enough, and sometimes it's an even better idea to keep it in the same language the rest of the project is. It all depends and what language a script is made in shouldn't be considered a "smell". | | |
| ▲ | moduspol 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Once you get beyond shell, make, docker (and similar), dependencies become relevant. At my current employer, we're mostly in TypeScript, which means you've got NPM dependencies, the NodeJS version, and operating system differences that you're fighting with. Now anyone running your build and tests (including your CI environment) needs to be able to set all those things up and keep them in working shape. For us, that includes different projects requiring different NodeJS versions. Meanwhile, if you can stick to the very basics, you can do anything more involved inside a container, where you can be confident that you, your CI environment, and even your less tech-savvy coworkers can all be using the exact same dependencies and execution environment. It eliminates entire classes of build and testing errors. | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've switched to using Deno for most of my orchestration scripts, especially shell scripts. It's a single portable, self-upgradeable executable and your shell scripts can directly reference the repositories/http(s) modules/versions it needs to run without a separate install step. I know I've mentioned it a few times in this thread, just a very happy user and have found it a really good option for a lot of usage. I'll mostly just use the Deno.* methods or jsr:std for most things at this point, but there's also npm:zx which can help depending on what you're doing. It also is a decent option for e2e testing regardless of the project language used. | |
| ▲ | Storment33 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I use to have my Makefile call out and do `docker build ...` and `docker run ...` etc with a volume mount of the source code to manage and maintain tooling versions etc. It works okay, better than a lot of other workflows I have seen. But it is a bit slow, a bit cumbersome(for langs like Go or Node.js that want to write to HOME) and I had some issues on my ARM Macbook about no ARM images etc. I would recommend taking a look at Nix, it is what I switched to. * It is faster.
* Has access to more tools.
* Works on ARM, X86 etc. |
| |
| ▲ | pamcake 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Shell and bash are easy to write insecurely and open your CI runners or dev machines up for exploitation by shell injection. Non-enthusiasts writing complex CI pipelines pulling and piping remote assets in bash without ShellCheck is a risky business. Python is a lot easier to write safely. | | |
| ▲ | snovv_crash 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You shouldn't be pulling untrusted assets in CI regardless. Hacking your bash runner is the hardest approach anyways, just patch some subroutine in a dependency that you'll call during your build or tests. |
| |
| ▲ | Storment33 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Huh? Who cares if the script is .sh, .bash, Makefile, Justfile, .py, .js or even .php? Me, typically I have found it to be a sign of over-engineering and found no benefits over just using shell script/task runner, as all it should be is plumbing that should be simple enough that a task runner can handle it. > If it works it works, as long as you can run it locally, it'll be good enough, Maybe when it is your own personal project "If it works it works" is fine. But when you come to corporate environment there starts to be issues of readability, maintainability, proprietary tooling, additional dependencies etc I have found when people start to over-engineer and use programming languages(like Python). E.g. > never_inline 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [–] > Build a CLI in python or whatever which does the same thing as CI, every CI stage should just call its subcommands. However, > and sometimes it's an even better idea to keep it in the same language the rest of the project is I'll agree. Depending on the project's language etc other options might make sense. But personally so far everytime I have come across something not using a task runner it has just been the wrong decision. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But personally so far everytime I have come across something not using a task runner it has just been the wrong decision. Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. Typically I see larger issues being created from "under-engineering" and just rushing with the first idea people can think of when they implement things, rather than "over-engineering" causing similarly sized future issues. But then I also know everyone's history is vastly different, my views are surely shaped by the specific issues I've witnessed (and sometimes contributed to :| ), than anything else. | | |
| ▲ | Storment33 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. Strong opinions, loosely held :) > Typically I see larger issues being created from "under-engineering" and just rushing with the first idea people can think of when they implement things, rather than "over-engineering" Funnily enough running with the first idea I think is creating a lot of the "over-engineering" I am seeing. Not stopping to consider other simpler solutions or even if the problem needs/is worth solving in the first place. > Yeah, tends to happen a lot when you hold strong opinions with strong conviction :) Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's highly subjective in the end. I quickly asked Claude to convert one of my open source repos using Make/Nix/Shell -> Python/Nix to see how it would look. It is actually one of the better Python as a task runners I have seen. * https://github.com/DeveloperC286/clean_git_history/pull/431 While the Python version is not as bad as I have seen previously, I am still struggling to see why you'd want it over Make/Shell. It introduces more dependencies(Python which I solved via Nix) but others haven't solved this problem and the Python script has dependencies(such as Click for the CLI). It is less maintainable as it is more code, roughly x3 the amount of the Makefile. To me the Python code is more verbose and not as simple compared to the Makefile's target so it is less readable as well. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It introduces more dependencies(Python which I solved via Nix) but others haven't solved this problem and the Python script has dependencies(such as Click for the CLI). UV scripts are great for this type of workflow There are even scripts which will install uv in the same file effectively making it just equivalent to ./run-file.py and it would handle all the dependency management the python version management and everything included and would work everywhere https://paulw.tokyo/standalone-python-script-with-uv/ Personally I end up just downloading uv and so not using the uv download script from this but if I am using something like github action which are more (ephemeral?) I'd just do this. Something like this can start out simple and can scale much more than the limitations of bash which can be abundant at times That being said, I still make some shell scripts because executing other applications is first class support in bash but not so much in python but after discovering this I might create some new scripts with python with automated uv because I end up installing uv on many devices anyway (because uv's really good for python) I am interested in bun-shell as well but that feels way too much bloated and even not used by many so less (AI assistance at times?) and I haven't understood bun shell at the same time too and so bash is superior to it usually | | |
| ▲ | Storment33 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > UV scripts are great for this type of workflow So previously when I have seen Python used as a task runner I think they used UV to call it. Although I don't think they had as a complete solution as your here auto-installing UV etc. Although the example you've linked is installing UV if missing, the version is not pinned, I also don't think it is handling missing Python which is not pinned even if installed locally. So you could get different versions on CI vs locally. While yes you are removing some of the dependencies problems created via using Python over Make/Shell I don't think this completely solves it. > Something like this can start out simple and can scale much more than the limitations of bash which can be abundant at times I personally haven't witnessed anytime I would consider the scales to have tipped in favour of Python and I would be concerned if they ever do, as really the task runner etc should be plumbing, so it should be simple. > That being said, I still make some shell scripts because executing other applications is first class support in bash but not so much in python but after discovering this I might create some new scripts with python with automated uv because I end up installing uv on many devices anyway (because uv's really good for python) Using Python/UV to do anything more complex than my example PR above? | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think UV scripts can/will actually install python and manage it itself as well and you can actually pin a specific version of python itself via Uv scripts I copied this from their website (https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/scripts/#declaring-script-d...) uv also respects Python version requirements:
example.py # /// script
# requires-python = ">=3.12"
# dependencies = []
# /// # Use some syntax added in Python 3.12
type Point = tuple[float, float]
print(Point) > Using Python/UV to do anything more complex than my example PR above? I can agree that this might be complex but that complexity has a trade off and of course nothing is shoe fits all but there are times when someone has to manage a complex CI environment and I looked at and there are some CI deterministic options too like invoke etc. and when you combine all of these, I feel like the workflow can definitely be interesting to say the least Once again, I don't know what really ends up in github actions since I have never really used it properly, I am basing its critiques based on what I've read and what solutions (python came quite frequently) and something recently which I discovered (which was the blog) |
| |
| ▲ | quotemstr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This thing does a global uv install when run? That's obnoxious! Never running stuff from whoever wrote this. Oh, and later the author suggests the script modify itself after running. What the fuck. Absolutely unacceptable way to deploy software. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does it really matter if its a global install of uv or not especially on Github Actions Also if this still bothers you, nothing stops you from removing the first x lines of code and having it in another .py file if this feels obnoxious to you > Oh, and later the author suggests the script modify itself after running. What the fuck. Absolutely unacceptable way to deploy software. Regarding author suggest its removes itself its because it does still feel clutterish but there is virtually 0 overhead in using/having it still be if you are already using uv or want to use uv Oh also, (I am not the Author) but I have played extensively with UV and I feel like the script can definitely be changed to install it locally rather than globally. They themselves mention it as #overkill on their website but even then it is better than whatever github action is | | |
| ▲ | quotemstr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm a huge believer in the rule that everything GH actions does should be a script you can also run locally. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes I believe the same too and I think we are on the same goal. I think that I can probably patch this code to install uv, let's say locally instead of globally if that's a major concern. I feel like its not that hard. | | |
| ▲ | quotemstr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's easy enough to patch. It's the philosophy that bugs me. We already have a huge problem with routine workflows pulling things from the network (often, without even a semblance of hash-locking) and foregoing the traditional separation between environment setup and business logic. There's a lot of value into having discrete steps for downloading/installing stuff and doing development, because then you can pay special attention to the former, look for anything odd, read release notes, and so on. Between explicit, human-solicited upgrades, dev workflows should be using, ideally, vendored dependencies, or, if not that, then at least stuff that's hash-verified end-to-end. Someday, someone is going to have a really big disaster that comes out of casual getting unauthenticated stuff from somebody else's computer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Using shell becomes deeply miserable as soon as you encounter its kryptonite, the space character. Especially but not limited to filenames. | |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find that shell scripting has a sharp cliff. I agree with the sentiment that most things are over engineered. However it’s really easy to go from a simple shell script running a few commands to something significantly more complex just to do something seemingly simple, like parse a semantic version, make an api call and check the status code etc, etc. The other problem with shell scripting on things like GHA is that it’s really easy to introduce security vulnerabilities by e.g forgetting to quote your variables and letting an uncontrolled input through. There’s no middle ground between bash and python and a lot of functionality lives in that space. | | |
| ▲ | Storment33 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > However it’s really easy to go from a simple shell script running a few commands to something significantly more complex just to do something seemingly simple, like parse a semantic version, make an api call and check the status code etc, etc. Maybe I keep making the wrong assumption that everyone is using the same tools the same way and thats why my opinions seem very strong. But I wouldn't even think of trying to "parse a semantic version" in shell, I am treating the shell scripts and task runners as plumbing, I would be handing that of a dedicated tool to action. |
| |
| ▲ | jcon321 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yea imagine having to maintain a python dependency (which undergoes security constraints) all because some junior cant read/write bash... and then that junior telling you you're the problem lmao |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | maccard 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem. IME this is where all the issues lie. Our CI pipeline can push to a remote container registry, but we can't do this locally. CI uses wildly different caching strategies to local builds, which diverges. Breaking up builds into different steps means that you need to "stash" the output of stages somewhere. If all your CI does is `make test && make deploy` then sure, but when you grow beyond that (my current project takes 45 minutes with a _warm_ cache) you need to diverge, and that's where the problems start. | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ironically, at least for a couple recent projects... just installing dependencies fresh is as fast on GH Actions as the GH caching methods, so I removed the caching and simplified the workflows. |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem. Probably most of the times when this is an actual problem, is building across many platforms. I'm running Linux x86_64 locally, but some of my deliverables are for macOS and Windows and ARM, and while I could cross-compile for all of them on Linux (macOS was a bitch to get working though), it always felt better to compile on the hardware I'm targeting. Sometimes there are Windows/macOS-specific failures, and if I couldn't just ssh in and correct/investigate, and instead had to "change > commit > push" in an endless loop, it's possible I'd quite literally would lose my mind. | | |
| ▲ | ethin 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I literally had to do this push > commit > test loop yesterday because apparently building universal Python wheels on MacOS is a pain in the ass. And I don't have a mac, so if I want to somewhat reliably reproduce how the runner might behave, I have to either test it on GH actions or rent one from something like Scaleway. Mainly because I don't currently knwo how else to do it. It's so, so frustrating and if anyone has ideas on making my life a bit better that would be nice lol. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | there is quickemu which can install mac vm on linux (or any other host) rather quickly, what are your thoughts on it (I am an absolute quickemu shill because I love that software) https://github.com/quickemu-project/quickemu [ Quickly create and run optimised Windows, macOS and Linux virtual machines ] | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thank you so much for this... If I could +1 a dozen times I would. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks! Glad I could help. If I may ask, what specific use case are you using quickemu for? Is it also for running mac machines on say linux? | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's what I intend to use it for, Mac and Windows... I'm starting on an app that I want to work cross platform (tauri/rust w/ react+mui) and want to be able to do manual testing or troubleshooting as needed on mac and windows without needing a separate machine. My laptop is an M1 MacBook Air, and I do have an N100 I could use for Windows... I'd just assume use my fast desktop which even emulated is likely faster and not have to move seats. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | yes, I think just the amount of friction it can reduce might be worth it in the first place. Oh btw although there are many primitives which help transferring files between VM's and others by having sshfs etc., one of the things which I enjoyed doing in quickemu is using the beloved piping-server https://github.com/nwtgck/piping-server Infinitely transfer between every device over pure HTTP with pipes or browsers The speeds might be slow but I was using it to build simple shell scripts and you can self host it or deploy on cf workers too most likely which is really simple but I haven't done it But for quick deployments/transfers of binaries/simple files, its great as well. Tauri is meant to be lightweight/produce small binaries so I suppose one can try it but there are other options as well Piping Serrvers + quickemu felt like a cheatcode to me atleast for more ephemeral vm's based workflow but of course YMMV Good luck with your project! I tried building a tauri app once for android just out of mere curiosity on linux and it was hell. I didn't know anything about android development but setting up the developer environment was really hard and I think I forgot everything I learnt from that but wish I had made notes or even video documenting the process | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fortunately/Unfortunately it wouldn't be a good experience for Phone use, maybe table as part of it will be displaying BBS-ANSI art and messages which lends itself to a larger display. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Storment33 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem. Completely agree. > I'm a huge fan of "train as you fight", whatever build tools you have locally should be what's used in CI. That is what I am doing, having my GitHub Actions just call the Make targets I am using locally. > I mean, at some point you are bash calling some other language anyway. Yes, shell scripts and or task runners(Make, Just, Task etc) are really just plumbing around calling other tools. Which is why it feels like a smell to me when you need something more. |
|
