docker-flask-example VS mangum

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

Hey! I was in the same place as you are, and the best solution I found was to use Mangum (https://mangum.io/). I believe it also works with Django. Mangum is an adapter that transforms lambda events into the corresponding structure to be received by your Framework API endpoints. We are currently using it with FastAPI and it's great. We code our backend without thinking about whether it will run on Lambda, and Magum takes care of the rest.

In the real world I'm never using static cloud resources. It's all serverless, containers, or horizontal auto-scaling. I let the infrastructure handle asynchronous scaling when needed. For FastAPI specifically I've used Mangum: https://mangum.io/ to provide the asynchronous invocation below the ASGI layer. Then all my FastAPI code can just be synchronous.

I discovered https://github.com/jordaneremieff/mangum which basically transforms a fastapi app to be compatible with aws lambda.

Should I create only 1 apigtw resource with 1 lambda and use mangum + fastapi for my rest api ?

Mangum: For the integration of the Aws Lambda and the Api Gateway with the FastApi

If you go the lambda route, you can use DRF (or any ASGI app) using https://mangum.io/

Yes, it's possible to wrap any asgi app to run in a lambda. Check out Mangum https://github.com/jordaneremieff/mangum

But we do not have a handler function, do we? We have a Mangum object wrapping the FastAPI application. Luckily, the Mangum object acts as a handler function, so we can just add the following in example/src/app/__init__.py:

I've used fastapi in a lambda. The package Mangum simplifies the conversion of lambda handler to a more tradition request.