BuildXL VS Concourse

Seems they came up with a way to scale up build toolchains with BuildXL[0]

Doesn't seem fully baked yet though

[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/BuildXL

> With regards to chroot, I stand corrected. I knew it was a tree of symlinks, but I thought it was also more than that because symlinks alone don't seem like a sandbox. Honestly, Cosmopolitan's system appears to be more of a sandbox than that.

To be totally clear: the tree of symlinks thing is a fallback, used only when lacking platform support or when sandboxing is explicitly turned off [0]. On Linux, the normal sandboxing strategy is to use namespaces, like most container runtimes. On Mac it apparently uses sandbox-exec (some opaque Apple tool), as was mentioned above. Chroot, being both non-POSIX, requiring root access on many systems, and not providing the necessary facilities is not really a great fit -- which I assume is why it's not used.

There was experimental Windows sandbox support at one point [1] based on how MS does it for BuildXL (their own build tool for giant monorepos) [2]. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be maintained, and under the hood it's kinda ugly -- it actively rewrites code in-memory to intercept calls to the Win32 APIs [3], which was apparently the cleanest/best way MS could come up with. However, from Bazel's POV it works in a roughly similar way -- you spawn subprocesses under a supervisor, which is in charge of spinning up whatever the target process is with restrictions on time/memory usage/file access.

On the "sandbox in the interpreter" thing: what kind of checks are you envisioning? It seems like putting checks at that level would end up leaving a lot out -- the goal of any build system is to eventually spawn an arbitrary process (Python, gcc, javac, some shell script, etc.) and so even with extensive checks in starlark you'd end up with accidental sandbox breaks all over the place. For pure starlark rules you could e.g. check that there are no inputs from /usr, but even then if gcc does it implicitly, you're SOL. Or am I thinking of the wrong kind of checks?

[0] https://bazel.build/docs/sandboxing#sandboxing-strategies

[1] https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/5136#issuecomment...

[2] https://github.com/microsoft/BuildXL/blob/master/Documentati...

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/Detours/wiki

Ableton ⬩ Acima ⬩ ACKO ⬩ ActiveState ⬩ Adrima ⬩ AJR International ⬩ Alma ⬩ Astrosat ⬩ Ava ⬩ Avetta ⬩ Azara ⬩ Barmenia ⬩ Basiq ⬩ Beautiful Destinations ⬩ BEC Systems ⬩ Bekk ⬩ Bellroy ⬩ Bendyworks ⬩ Bernoulli Finance ⬩ Blue Fog Training ⬩ BravoTran ⬩ Brilliant ⬩ Budapest School ⬩ Buildr ⬩ Cachix ⬩ CalculoJuridico ⬩ CareRev ⬩ CARFAX ⬩ Caribou ⬩ carwow ⬩ CBANC ⬩ CircuitHub ⬩ CN Group CZ ⬩ CoinTracking ⬩ Concourse CI ⬩ Consensys ⬩ Cornell Tech ⬩ Corvus ⬩ Crowdstrike ⬩ Culture Amp ⬩ Day One ⬩ Deepgram ⬩ diesdas.digital ⬩ Dividat ⬩ Driebit ⬩ Drip ⬩ Emirates ⬩ eSpark ⬩ EXR ⬩ Featurespace ⬩ Field 33 ⬩ Fission ⬩ Flint ⬩ Folq ⬩ Ford ⬩ Forsikring ⬩ Foxhound Systems ⬩ Futurice ⬩ FörsäkringsGirot ⬩ Generative ⬩ Genesys ⬩ Geora ⬩ Gizra ⬩ GWI ⬩ HAMBS ⬩ Hatch ⬩ Hearken ⬩ hello RSE ⬩ HubTran ⬩ IBM ⬩ Idein ⬩ Illuminate ⬩ Improbable ⬩ Innovation through understanding ⬩ Insurello ⬩ iwantmyname ⬩ jambit ⬩ Jobvite ⬩ KOVnet ⬩ Kulkul ⬩ Logistically ⬩ Luko ⬩ Metronome Growth Systems ⬩ Microsoft ⬩ MidwayUSA ⬩ Mimo ⬩ Mind Gym ⬩ MindGym ⬩ Next DLP ⬩ NLX ⬩ Nomalab ⬩ Nomi ⬩ NoRedInk ⬩ Novabench ⬩ NZ Herald ⬩ Permutive ⬩ Phrase ⬩ PINATA ⬩ PinMeTo ⬩ Pivotal Tracker ⬩ PowerReviews ⬩ Practle ⬩ Prima ⬩ Rakuten ⬩ Roompact ⬩ SAVR ⬩ Scoville ⬩ Scrive ⬩ Scrivito ⬩ Serenytics ⬩ Smallbrooks ⬩ Snapview ⬩ SoPost ⬩ Splink ⬩ Spottt ⬩ Stax ⬩ Stowga ⬩ StructionSite ⬩ Studyplus For School ⬩ Symbaloo ⬩ Talend ⬩ Tallink & Silja Line ⬩ Test Double ⬩ thoughtbot ⬩ Travel Perk ⬩ TruQu ⬩ TWave ⬩ Tyler ⬩ Uncover ⬩ Unison ⬩ Veeva ⬩ Vendr ⬩ Verity ⬩ Vnator ⬩ Vy ⬩ W&W Interaction Solutions ⬩ Watermark ⬩ Webbhuset ⬩ Wejoinin ⬩ Zalora ⬩ ZEIT.IO ⬩ Zettle

> Why bother, when Dagger caches everything automatically?

The fear with needing to run `npm ci` (or better, `pnpm install`) before running dagger is on the amount of time required to get this step to run. Sure, in the early days, trying out toy examples, when the only dependencies are from dagger upstream, very little time at all. But what happens when I start pulling more and more dependencies from the Node ecosystem to build the Dagger pipeline? Your documentation includes examples like pulling in `@google-cloud/run` as a dependency: https://docs.dagger.io/620941/github-google-cloud#step-3-cre... and similar for Azure: https://docs.dagger.io/620301/azure-pipelines-container-inst... . The more dependencies brought in - the longer `npm ci` is going to take on GitHub Actions. And it's pretty predictable that, in a complicated pipeline, the list of dependencies is going to get pretty big - at least a dependency per infrastructure provider we use, plus inevitably all the random Node dependencies that work their way into any Node project, like eslint, dotenv, prettier, testing dependencies... I think I have a reasonable fear that `npm ci` just for the Dagger pipeline will hit multiple minutes, and then developers who expect linting and similar short-run jobs to finish within 30 seconds are going to wonder why they're dealing with this overhead.

It's worth noting that one of Concourse's problems was, even with webhooks setup for GitHub to notify Concourse to begin a build, Concourse's design required it to dump the contents of the webhook and query the GitHub API for the same information (whether there were new commits) before starting a pipeline and cloning the repository (see: https://github.com/concourse/concourse/issues/2240 ). And that was for a CI/CD system where, for all YAML's faults, for sure one of its strengths is that it doesn't require running `npm ci`, with all its associated slowness. So please take it on faith that, if even a relatively small source of latency like that was felt in Concourse, for sure the latency from running `npm ci` will be felt, and Dagger's users (DevOps) will be put in an uncomfortable place where they need to defend the choice of Dagger from their users (developers) who go home and build a toy example on AlternateCI which runs what they need much faster.

> I will concede that Dagger’s clustering capabilities are not great yet

Herein my argument. It's not that I'm not convinced that building pipelines in a general-purpose programming language is a better approach compared to YAML, it's that building pipelines is tightly coupled with the infrastructure that runs the pipelines. One aspect of that is scaling up compute to meet the requirements dictated by the pipeline. But another aspect is that `npm ci` should not be run before submitting the pipeline code to Dagger, but after submitting the pipeline code to Dagger. Dagger should be responsible for running `npm ci`, just like Concourse was responsible for doing all the interpolation of the `((var))` syntax (i.e. you didn't need to run some kind of templating before submitting the YAML to Concourse). If Dagger is responsible for running `npm ci` (really, `pnpm install`), then it can maintain its own local pnpm store / pipeline dependency caching, which would be much faster, and overcome any shortcomings in the caching system of GitHub Actions or whatever else is triggering it.

> Imagine you live in a world where no part of the build has to repeat unless the changes actually impacted it. A world in which all builds happened with automatic parallelism. A world in which you could reproduce very reliably any part of the build on your laptop.

That sounds similar to https://concourse-ci.org/

I quite like it, but it never seemed to gain traction outside of Cloud Foundry.

I used Concourse[0] for a while. No real complaints, the visibility is nice but the functionality isn't anything new.

[0] https://concourse-ci.org/

We run https://concourse-ci.org/ on our own hardware at our office. (as a side note, running your own hardware, you realise just how abysmally slow most cloud servers are.)

Concourse: https://concourse-ci.org

We use https://concourse-ci.org/ at the moment and have been reasonably happy with it, however it only has support for linux containers at the moment, no windows containers. (MacOS doesn't have a containers primitive yet unfortunately)