DSCI is simple yet super flexible pipeline engine to write CI code on regular programming languages, integrates with Forgejo using web hooks. Intended for small teams hosting Forgejo on single VM VPS and willing to create pipelines on regular programming languages
DSCI - CI engine with programming languages to write pipelines (no YAML)
https://dev.to/sp1983/dsci-ci-with-regular-programming-languages-instead-of-yaml-5h71
20 Comments
smaximov@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 32d
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
Only as high level glue , main logic is just normal programming languages - see here https://github.com/melezhik/DSCI/tree/main/examples
FizzyOrange@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
You can (and should!) do exactly the same with "traditional" GitHub Actions style YAML.
Avoid putting commands in the YAML - put those in separate scripts and call them from the YAML. The YAML should only be used for things that can't be done from scripts (e.g. job matrices, uploading artifacts, reporting status etc.)
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
This is exactly what I try to avoid, cause:
many people (in my experience ) even don't bother refactoring YAML spaghetti code to separate scripts and we end up unmaintainable codebase
and even if one has to do such a refactoring what is the point of using YAML at all ?
All I need just a collection of tasks/jobs written on languages of choice and I don't need YAML "programming" language at all )
PS And btw I don't mind having a minimal amount of YAML as configuration layer and this is what is presented in DSCI, but only minimal ))
FizzyOrange@programming.dev · 0 pts · 32d
It allows the CI engine to determine which jobs to start, what their steps are etc.
To be fair I have worked on one project that had very complex CI and we almost decided to generate the CI graph procedurally with a Python script (Gitlab supports this, somewhat awkwardly). But in the end we decided it wouldn't be worth the overhead of writing, maintaining and learning a whole new CI system on top of Gitlab's CI.
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
The issues you had just proves that YAML based CI approach always leads to troubles with time. And yeah, I have been there, code generators for YAML. Hundreds of lines for YAML pipelines, etc ))
Yep, like a said , I don't mind to have such a configuration inside YAML, but this should NOT be pipeline code itself )
arran4@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 32d
I mean there is only so many ways of representing a data structurally clearly. I find that yaml is good enough but like XML leads to a lot of bloat, but unlike XML isn't nearly as complicated. I'm not sure making it a library resolves the issue better than creating a custom grammar that appropriately accommodates what people want to express in the language easily, make the possible and desired easy, the impossible and undesirable states hard if not unrepresentable. I mean having a custom language does allow for loops, and functions which isn't something I find I need too much in CI. Perhaps templating / functions but having a full Turing complete language leads the way for bad states / nonideal uses.
melezhik@programming.dev · 3 pts · 32d
GH project link - https://github.com/melezhik/DSCI
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 32d
You can just hit up any other language from it though?
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
Here is SDK for those languages:
Raku Perl Bash Python Ruby Powershell Php Golang
UPDATE: so it's not just hitting up a language from a pipeline , it's full reach SDK, one writes a pipeline on a language, if I get your comment correctly
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 32d
Well no I mean if you want to do something in python just call up the python interpreter, if you have some existing stuff in TCL, just run it through that interpreter and so on,no need for a specific anything.
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
But now when you have a YAML program as the first level abstraction how do you handle results between those multi language calls ? In DSCI this is achieved via states and normal functions , and everting is just a function on general purpose programming language, in YAML you need all these magic ( awkward ) YAML syntax to mimic all those things ( pass parameters , handle global variables , process user input , handle returned parameters , etc )
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 32d
When I did it was just like bash in yaml, return 1/0 from python, TCL, ...
IIRC !
Marija_@programming.dev · 1 pts · 32d
Less YAML, more Optimocracy.
thesmokingman@programming.dev · 1 pts · 32d
Looking at the examples, you’ve just made a brand new GitHub Actions framework. There’s YAML to wrap everything together and a bunch of Python that’s so declarative it might as well be HCL. Do you have an example that’s a bit more than “do what YAML does only in bash?”
melezhik@programming.dev · 1 pts · 32d
Ok, try to do it on GH actions, share states between tasks/jobs for example:
tasks/task_one/task.py
tasks/task_two/task.py
Or share states between jobs:
jobs/job1/task.py
jobs/job2/task.py
I can't imagine how much boilerplate code (if this ever possible ) one needs to write to achieve that on YAML based pipelines (GH Actions/ etc)
And don't tell me about jobs artifacts ))
UPDATE:
Another good example is to run tasks conditionally, yes using old good
if:The same could be quite awkward in YAML based code
thesmokingman@programming.dev · 1 pts · 32d
This is a boilerplate example. I asked for something more than boilerplate. Give me some reasons why I need an incredibly stateful CI engine.
melezhik@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
it's just because I think in real world we have a lot of tasks where state is required or extremely beneficial, some examples on top of my head:
etc
thesmokingman@programming.dev · 2 pts · 32d
I wouldn’t do any of that in a CI-only system. If I did, I’d use tools that exist for those jobs that already allow scripting languages.
melezhik@programming.dev · 1 pts · 32d
If you use tools gluing them into YAML - you get YAML bloated with time . When you say those tools already having Python - excellent I would like to use those Python libs or SDK directly in my Python code instead of juggling those tools as cli or code blocks inside YAML
UPDATE: and yeah , re-read again - I guess the most of automation is done today via “CI” pipelines even when those are not meant to be CI only, like you said … anyways the rest I have said stands true for me … don’t bake your code into YAML )