wmedvede commented on code in PR #255:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator/pull/255#discussion_r1335645649


##########
test/testdata/sonataflow.org_v1alpha08_sonataflow-simpleops.yaml:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Copyright 2023 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates
+#
+# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+# You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+#     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+# limitations under the License.
+
+apiVersion: sonataflow.org/v1alpha08
+kind: SonataFlow
+metadata:
+  name: simple
+  annotations:
+    sonataflow.org/description: Simple example on k8s!
+    sonataflow.org/version: 0.0.1
+spec:
+  podSpecTemplate:
+    flowContainer:
+      image: quay.io/kiegroup/sonataflow-minimal-example:latest

Review Comment:
   To double check with my previous question, so here what we are doing is:
   
   1) In the flow, we are defining the HelloWorld workflow.
   
   2) then, by, an external media we have already prepared an image that has 
exactly the build of that workflow. In the tests we have done all this manually 
by doing docker build -t quay.io/kiegroup/sonataflow-minimal-example:latest 
/tmp/simpleworkflow/ etc. So, we know by construction that the workflow is the 
same, that we have quarkus project build that can start, etc.
   
   3) So in the end, we have an image that was produced by the 
quay.io/kiegroup/kogito-swf-builder-nightly:latest, pretty much the same that 
would have been done if no image was configured.
   
   Finally, all scenarios where the workflow defined in the "flow" is different 
than the "corresponding" workflow already packaged/build in the provided image 
are not good. why? because, the semantic of what you see in the "flow" is 
different from what will be executing.
   
   Maybe I'm missing something, but I see this very risky, and other than a 
kind of optimization I don't see the use cases for this. ¿?
   
   
   
   
   



##########
test/testdata/sonataflow.org_v1alpha08_sonataflow-simpleops.yaml:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Copyright 2023 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates
+#
+# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+# You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+#     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+# limitations under the License.
+
+apiVersion: sonataflow.org/v1alpha08
+kind: SonataFlow
+metadata:
+  name: simple
+  annotations:
+    sonataflow.org/description: Simple example on k8s!
+    sonataflow.org/version: 0.0.1
+spec:
+  podSpecTemplate:
+    flowContainer:
+      image: quay.io/kiegroup/sonataflow-minimal-example:latest

Review Comment:
   To double check with my previous question, so here what we are doing is:
   
   1) In the flow, we are defining the HelloWorld workflow.
   
   2) then, by, an external media we have already prepared an image that has 
exactly the build of that workflow. In the tests we have done all this manually 
by doing docker build -t quay.io/kiegroup/sonataflow-minimal-example:latest 
/tmp/simpleworkflow/ etc. So, we know by construction that the workflow is the 
same, that we have quarkus project build that can start, etc.
   
   3) So in the end, we have an image that was produced by the 
quay.io/kiegroup/kogito-swf-builder-nightly:latest, pretty much the same that 
would have been done if no image was configured.
   
   Finally, all scenarios where the workflow defined in the "flow" is different 
than the "corresponding" workflow already packaged/build in the provided image 
are not good. why? because, the semantic of what you see in the "flow" is 
different from what will be executing.
   
   Maybe I'm missing something, but I see this very risky, and other than a 
kind of optimization I don't see the use cases for this. ¿?
   
   
   
   
   



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to