argo VS Concourse

Like Argo Workflows?

https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows

Dagger looks more comparable to Argo Workflows: https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ That's the first of the Argo projects, which can run multi-step workflows within containers on Kubernetes.

For what it's worth, my colleagues and I have had great luck with Argo Workflows and wrote up a blog post about some of its advantages a few years ago: https://www.interline.io/blog/scaling-openstreetmap-data-wor...

Despite other alternatives like Circle CI, Travis CI, GitLab CI or even self-hosted options using open-source projects like Tekton or Argo Workflow, the reason for choosing GitHub Actions was straightforward: GitHub Actions, in conjunction with the GitHub ecosystem, offers a user-friendly experience and access to a rich software marketplace.

author seems to be describing the kind of patterns you might make with https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ . or see for example https://github.com/couler-proj/couler , which is an sdk for describing tasks that may be submitted to different workflow engines on the backend.

it's a little confusing to me that the author seems to object to "pipelines" and then equate them with messaging-queues. for me at least, "pipeline" vs "workflow-engine" vs "scheduler" are all basically synonyms in this context. those things may or may not be implemented with a message-queue for persistence, but the persistence layer itself is usually below the level of abstraction that $current_problem is really concerned with. like the author says, eventually you have to track state/timestamps/logs, but you get that from the beginning if you start with a workflow engine.

i agree with author that message-queues should not be a knee-jerk response to most problems because the LoE for edge-cases/observability/monitoring is huge. (maybe reach for a queue only if you may actually overwhelm whatever the "scheduler" can handle.) but don't build the scheduler from scratch either.. use argowf, kubeflow, or a more opinionated framework like airflow, mlflow, databricks, aws lamda or step-functions. all/any of these should have config or api that's robust enough to express rate-limit/retry stuff. almost any of these choices has better observability out-of-the-box than you can easily get from a queue. but most importantly.. they provide idioms for handling failure that data-science folks and junior devs can work with. the right way to structure code is just much more clear and things like structuring messages/events, subclassing workers, repeating/retrying tasks, is just harder to mess up.

Argo Workflows + Argo Events

Drone, or Tekton, Argo Workflows if you’re on k8s

Check out Argo Workflows.

go-git has a lot of bugs and is not actively maintained. The bug even affects Argo Workflow, which caused our data pipeline to fail unexpectedly (reference: https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/issues/10091)

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)