1 Commits (feafda8fdac0fb451cf593660726525c2abcb41a)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Paul Fitzpatrick	e6983e9209	(core) add machinery for self-managed flavor of Grist ... Summary: Currently, we have two ways that we deliver Grist. One is grist-core, which has simple defaults and is relatively easy for third parties to deploy. The second is our internal build for our SaaS, which is the opposite. For self-managed Grist, a planned paid on-premise version of Grist, I adopt the following approach: * Use the `grist-core` build mechanism, extending it to accept an overlay of extra code if present. * Extra code is supplied in a self-contained `ext` directory, with an `ext/app` directory that is of same structure as core `app` and `stubs/app`. * The `ext` directory also contains information about extra node dependencies needed beyond that of `grist-core`. * The `ext` directory is contained within our monorepo rather than `grist-core` since it may contain material not under the Apache license. Docker builds are achieved in our monorepo by using the `--build-context` functionality to add in `ext` during the regular `grist-core` build: ``` docker buildx build --load -t gristlabs/grist-ee --build-context=ext=../ext . ``` Incremental builds in our monorepo are achieved with the `build_core.sh` helper, like: ``` buildtools/build_core.sh /tmp/self-managed cd /tmp/self-managed yarn start ``` The initial `ext` directory contains material for snapshotting to S3. If you build the docker image as above, and have S3 access, you can do something like: ``` docker run -p 8484:8484 --env GRIST_SESSION_SECRET=a-secret \ --env GRIST_DOCS_S3_BUCKET=grist-docs-test \ --env GRIST_DOCS_S3_PREFIX=self-managed \ -v $HOME/.aws:/root/.aws -it gristlabs/grist-ee ``` This will start a version of Grist that is like `grist-core` but with S3 snapshots enabled. To release this code to `grist-core`, it would just need to move from `ext/app` to `app` within core. I tried a lot of ways of organizing self-managed Grist, and this was what made me happiest. There are a lot of trade-offs, but here is what I was looking for: * Only OSS-code in grist-core. Adding mixed-license material there feels unfair to people already working with the repo. That said, a possible future is to move away from our private monorepo to a public mixed-licence repo, which could have the same relationship with grist-core as the monorepo has. * Minimal differences between self-managed builds and one of our existing builds, ideally hewing as close to grist-core as possible for ease of documentation, debugging, and maintenance. * Ideally, docker builds without copying files around (the new `--build-context` functionality made that possible). * Compatibility with monorepo build. Expressing dependencies of the extra code in `ext` proved tricky to do in a clean way. Yarn/npm fought me every step of the way - everything related to optional dependencies was unsatisfactory in some respect. Yarn2 is flexible but smells like it might be overreach. In the end, organizing to install non-core dependencies one directory up from the main build was a good simple trick that saved my bacon. This diff gets us to the point of building `grist-ee` images conveniently, but there isn't a public repo people can go look at to see its source. This could be generated by taking `grist-core`, adding the `ext` directory to it, and pushing to a distinct repository. I'm not in a hurry to do that, since a PR to that repo would be hard to sync with our monorepo and `grist-core`. Also, we don't have any licensing text ready for the `ext` directory. So leaving that for future work. Test Plan: manual Reviewers: georgegevoian, alexmojaki Reviewed By: georgegevoian, alexmojaki Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D3415	2 years ago