bash-core VS docker-flask-example

Error handling is also atrocious. Doing set -e fixes some issues, but there are plenty of valid cases in which one of your commands will have an error, and your script will continue execution like nothing ever happened. And, in the case of an error, as I'm sure you have realized, diagnostics are absolutely terrible. You're extremely lucky to get a line number (which I think was only added since Bash 5.1), but that's it. If you want anything more, like a stacktrace, you're stuck in the water. I have developed a library, bash-core, to help with this, but the stacktrace handling acts unexpectedly if there are errors within subshells.

I'm quite happy to see that something Bash-related is on Hacker News! Unfortunately it seems that I don't really agree with much the author...

While I do agree that it would be nice to be able to have 'local' functions and have inter-function cleanup work better, the logical conclusion for me was not to use function subshells. Since the use case is for larger programs (where different functions may want to have their own cleanup mechanisms), I'm opting to go for more of a library route. For example, I'm working on a Bash library that includes a function to allow different sources to add (and remove) functions to the same `TRAP`. A similar function may be useful, possibly involving the `RETURN` trap and the `-T` flag. Obviously, using a package manager for _Bash_ of all languages brings in a lot of overhead, but I think it can be quite powerful, especially with a potential "Bundle" feature that makes scripts work without the package manager.

Concerning specifically the use of subshells, (as other commenters have pointed out) it significantly reduces performance. I also disagree that dynamic scoping is necessarily bad for Bash. I find it quite useful when I need to use various common functions to manipulate a variable - since modifying and 'returning' variables from a function is usually either slow or verbose with Bash. Admittedly though, this feature is quite annoying at times - for example, most public functions in my Bash package manager[2] all have their variables prefixed with two underscores - because they `source` all the shell scripts of all package dependencies - so I want to be extra certain nothing weird happens

[1] https://github.com/hyperupcall/bash-core/blob/a17ab0a8b6070f...

I've been maintaining my Build a SAAS App with Flask video course[0] for 8 years. It has gone from pre-1.0 to 2.3 and has been recorded twice with tons of incremental updates added over the years to keep things current.

In my opinion tutorial creators should pin their versions so that anyone taking the course or going through the tutorial will have a working version that matches the video or written material.

I'm all for keeping things up to date and do update things every few months but rolling updates don't tend to work well for tutorials because sometimes a minor version requires a code change or covering new concepts. As a tutorial consumer it's frustrating when the content doesn't match the source code unless it's nothing but a version bump.

I've held off upgrading Flask to 3.0 and Python 3.12 due to these open issues with 3rd party dependencies https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/issues/17.

[0]: https://buildasaasappwithflask.com/

I usually end up with project specific "run" scripts which are just shell scripts so I can do things like `./run shell` to drop into the shell of a container, or `./run rails db:migrate` to run a command in a container.

Here's a few project specific examples. They all have similar run scripts:

    - https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example

There's a lot of "tool" selections in that repo.

If anyone is looking for ready to go web app examples aimed at both development and production, I maintain:

    - https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example

Personally I maintain https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example. There's also https://github.com/nickjj/build-a-saas-app-with-flask if you want more opinions.

This is what I do except I use a shell script instead of a Makefile.

A working example of this is at: https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/blob/912388f3...

Those ./run ci:XXX commands are in: https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/blob/912388f3...

I like it because if CI ever happens to be down I can still run that shell script locally.

> I've encountered a code written in the 12factor style of using environment variables for configuration, and in that particular case there was no validation nor documentation of the configuration options. Is this typical?

I don't know about typical, it comes down to how your team values the code they write.

You can have a .env.example file commit to version control which explains every option in as much or as little detail as you'd like. For my own personal projects, I tend to document this file like this https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/blob/main/.en....

I did this for a while but make isn't well suited for this use case. What I end up doing is have a shell script with a bunch of functions in it. Functions automatically becomes a callable a command (with a way to make private functions if you want) with pretty much no boiler plate.

The benefit of this is it's just shell scripting so you can use shell features like $@ to pass args to another command or easily source and deal with env vars.

I've written about this process at https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/replacing-make-with-a-shell-s... and an example file is here https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example/blob/main/run.

There's: https://github.com/nickjj/docker-flask-example