make-booster VS docker-flask-example

For a very different approach, check out make-booster:

https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/make-booster

Make-booster provides utility routines intended to greatly simplify data processing (particularly a data pipeline) using GNU make. It includes some mechanisms specifically to help Python, as well as general-purpose mechanisms that can be useful in any system. In particular, it helps reliably reproduce results, and it automatically determines what needs to run and runs only that (producing a significant speedup in most cases). Released as open source software.

https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/make-booster

I think a lot of hate on make is due to poor use. If your makefile is complex, refactor it. Auto-generate dependencies (it only takes a few lines in GNU make). And don't use recursive make, that way lies madness. I also think GNU make is the wiser tool; POSIX make lacks too much in many cases.

https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/make-booster

From its readme:

"This project (contained in this directory and below) provides utility routines intended to greatly simplify data processing (particularly a data pipeline) using GNU make. It includes some mechanisms specifically to help Python, as well as general-purpose mechanisms that can be useful in any system. In particular, it helps reliably reproduce results, and it automatically determines what needs to run and runs only that (producing a significant speedup in most cases)."

"For example, imagine that Python file BBB.py says include CC, and file CC.py reads from file F.txt (and CC.py declares its INPUTS= as described below). Now if you modify file F.txt or CC.py, any rule that runs BBB.py will automatically be re-run in the correct order when you use make, even if you didn't directly edit BBB.py."

This is NOT functionality directly provided by Python, and the overhead with >1000 files was 0.07seconds which we could live with :-).

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