Revert healthcheck instruction for compatibility with older Docker runtimes #2630
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in the pull request primarily focus on modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
docker/prod.Dockerfile (3)
Line range hint
24-35: Perhaps we could make the error message a tad more helpful?While the architecture detection is well implemented, the error message could be more informative for users encountering issues on unsupported platforms.
Consider this slightly more informative error message:
- echo "Unsupported architecture: $ARCH"; \ + echo "Unsupported architecture: $ARCH. Only amd64 and arm64 are supported for Typst installation."; \
Line range hint
1-1: Are we living in the future?Python 3.13 seems a bit optimistic as it hasn't been released yet. Perhaps we meant to use a more current stable version?
Consider using a more stable version like
3.11or3.12.-FROM python:3.13-slim-bookworm AS base +FROM python:3.12-slim-bookworm AS base
Line range hint
1-85: Architectural ConsiderationsWhile the Dockerfile structure is solid, there seem to be some misalignments between the PR's stated objectives and the actual changes:
- The PR description mentions compatibility with older Docker runtimes, but the changes don't clearly address this
- The healthcheck modifications might need reconsideration
- The Python version needs to be adjusted
Consider documenting the compatibility requirements and testing with the target Docker versions before proceeding.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docker/prod.Dockerfile(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docker/prod.Dockerfile (1)
82-82:
Is this change aligned with the PR objective?
The PR description mentions reverting healthcheck for compatibility with older Docker runtimes, but I notice we're actually reducing the start period from 20s to 10s. This might be problematic for:
- Slower systems that need more time to initialize
- Compatibility with older Docker versions (as mentioned in PR objective)
Let's check the history of this file to understand the original values:
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2630 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 69.58% 69.58%
========================================
Files 211 211
Lines 11875 11875
Branches 1201 1201
========================================
Hits 8263 8263
Misses 3246 3246
Partials 366 366 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Proposed Changes
Merge Checklist
/docsOnly PR's with test cases included and passing lint and test pipelines will be reviewed
@ohcnetwork/care-backend-maintainers @ohcnetwork/care-backend-admins
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores
pipenvversion to 2024.4.0 for improved package management.