Bazel's next generation focuses on improving build performance and developer experience. Key changes include Starlark, a Python-like language for build rules offering more flexibility and maintainability, as well as a transition to a new execution phase, Skyframe v2, designed for increased parallelism and scalability. These upgrades aim to simplify complex build processes, especially for large projects, while also reducing overall build times and improving caching effectiveness through more granular dependency tracking and action invalidation. Additionally, remote execution and caching are being streamlined, further contributing to faster builds by distributing workload and reusing previously built artifacts more efficiently.
GitHub Actions workflows, especially those involving Node.js projects, can suffer from significant disk I/O bottlenecks, primarily during dependency installation (npm install). These bottlenecks stem from the limited I/O performance of the virtual machines used by GitHub Actions runners. This leads to dramatically slower execution times compared to local machines with faster disks. The blog post explores this issue by benchmarking npm install operations across various runner types and demonstrates substantial performance improvements when using self-hosted runners or alternative CI/CD platforms with better I/O capabilities. Ultimately, developers should be aware of these potential bottlenecks and consider optimizing their workflows, exploring different runner options, or utilizing caching strategies to mitigate the performance impact.
HN users discussed the surprising performance disparity between GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners, with several suggesting network latency as a significant factor beyond raw disk I/O. Some pointed out the potential impact of ephemeral runner environments and the overhead of network file systems. Others highlighted the benefits of using actions/cache or alternative CI providers with better I/O performance for specific workloads. A few users shared their experiences, with one noting significant improvements from self-hosting and another mentioning the challenges of optimizing build processes within GitHub Actions. The general consensus leaned towards self-hosting for I/O-bound tasks, while acknowledging the convenience of GitHub's hosted runners for less demanding workflows.
Dagger introduces a portable, reproducible development and CI/CD environment using containers. It acts as a programmable shell, allowing developers to define their build pipelines as code using a simple, declarative language (CUE). This approach eliminates environment inconsistencies by executing every step within containers, from dependency installation to testing and deployment. Dagger caches build steps efficiently, speeding up development cycles, and its container-native nature ensures builds behave identically across different machines, from developer laptops to CI servers. This allows developers to focus on building software, not wrestling with environment configurations.
Hacker News users discussed Dagger's potential, its similarity to other tools, and its reliance on Go. Several commenters saw it as a promising evolution of build systems and CI/CD, praising its portability and potential to simplify complex workflows. Comparisons were made to Nix, BuildKit, and Earthly, with some arguing Dagger offered a more user-friendly approach using a familiar shell-like syntax. Concerns were raised about the Go dependency, potentially limiting its adoption in non-Go environments and adding complexity for tasks like cross-compilation. The dependence on a container runtime was also noted, while some appreciated the declarative nature of configurations, others expressed skepticism about its long-term practicality. There was also interest in its ability to interface with existing tools like Docker Compose and Kubernetes.
GitHub Actions' opaque nature makes it difficult to verify the provenance of the code being executed in your workflows. While Actions marketplace listings link to source code, the actual runner environment often uses pre-built distributions hosted by GitHub, with no guarantee they precisely match the public repository. This discrepancy creates a potential security risk, as malicious actors could alter the distributed code without updating the public source. Therefore, auditing the integrity of Actions is crucial, but currently complex. The post advocates for reproducible builds and improved transparency from GitHub to enhance trust and security within the Actions ecosystem.
HN users largely agreed with the author's concerns about the opacity of third-party GitHub Actions. Several highlighted the potential security risks of blindly trusting external code, with some suggesting that reviewing the source of each action should be standard practice, despite the impracticality. Some argued for better tooling or built-in mechanisms within GitHub Actions to improve transparency and security. The potential for malicious actors to introduce vulnerabilities through seemingly benign actions was also a recurring theme, with users pointing to the risk of supply chain attacks and the difficulty in auditing complex dependencies. Some suggested using self-hosted runners or creating internal action libraries for sensitive projects, although this introduces its own management overhead. A few users countered that similar trust issues exist with any third-party library and that the benefits of using pre-built actions often outweigh the risks.
This GitHub repository, airo, offers a self-hosting solution for deploying code from a local machine to a production server. It utilizes SSH and rsync to synchronize files and execute commands remotely, simplifying the deployment process. The repository's scripts facilitate tasks like restarting services, transferring only changed files for efficient updates, and handling pre- and post-deployment hooks for customized actions. Essentially, airo provides a streamlined, automated approach to deploying and managing applications on a self-hosted server, eliminating the need for manual intervention and complex configurations.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Airo's value proposition. Some questioned the need for another deployment tool in an already crowded landscape, especially given Airo's apparent similarity to existing solutions like Ansible, Fabric, or even simpler shell scripts. Others pointed out potential security concerns with the agent-based approach, suggesting it might introduce unnecessary vulnerabilities. The lack of support for popular cloud providers like AWS, Azure, or GCP was also a common criticism, limiting Airo's usefulness for many developers. A few commenters highlighted the project's early stage and potential, but overall the reception was cautious, with many suggesting existing tools might be a better choice for most deployment scenarios.
This blog post details a method for securely deploying applications to on-premises IIS servers from Azure Pipelines without exposing credentials. The author leverages a self-hosted agent running on the target server, combined with a pre-configured deployment group. Instead of storing sensitive information directly in the pipeline, the approach uses Azure Key Vault to securely store the application pool password. The pipeline then retrieves this password during the deployment process and utilizes it with the powershell task in Azure Pipelines to update the application pool, ensuring credentials are not exposed in plain text within the pipeline or agent's environment. This setup enables automated deployments while mitigating the security risks associated with managing credentials for on-premises deployments.
The Hacker News comments generally praise the article for its practical approach to a complex problem (deploying to on-premise IIS from Azure DevOps). Several commenters appreciate the focus on simplicity and avoiding over-engineering, highlighting the use of built-in Azure DevOps features and PowerShell over more complex solutions. One commenter suggests using deployment groups instead of self-hosted agents for better security and manageability. Another emphasizes the importance of robust rollback procedures, which the article acknowledges but doesn't delve into deeply. A few commenters discuss alternative approaches, like using containers or configuration management tools, but acknowledge the validity of the author's simpler method for specific scenarios. Overall, the comments agree that the article provides a useful, real-world example of secure-enough deployments.
Fly.io's blog post announces a significant improvement to Semgrep's usability by eliminating the need for local installations and complex configurations. They've introduced a cloud-based service that directly integrates with GitHub, allowing developers to seamlessly scan their repositories for vulnerabilities and code smells. This streamlined approach simplifies the setup process, automatically handles dependency management, and provides a centralized platform for managing rules and viewing results, making Semgrep a much more practical and appealing tool for security analysis. The post highlights the speed and ease of use as key improvements, emphasizing the ability to get started quickly and receive immediate feedback within the familiar GitHub interface.
Hacker News users discussed Fly.io's announcement of their acquisition of Semgrep and the implications for the static analysis tool. Several commenters expressed excitement about the potential for improved performance and broader language support, particularly for languages like Go and Java. Some questioned the impact on Semgrep's open-source nature, with concerns about potential feature limitations or a shift towards a closed-source model. Others saw the acquisition as positive, hoping Fly.io's resources would accelerate Semgrep's development and broaden its reach. A few users shared positive personal experiences using Semgrep, praising its effectiveness in catching security vulnerabilities. The overall sentiment seems cautiously optimistic, with many eager to see how Fly.io's stewardship will shape Semgrep's future.
Actionate brings the power of GitHub Actions directly into JetBrains IDEs like IntelliJ IDEA and PyCharm. It allows developers to run and debug individual workflow jobs locally, simplifying the development and testing process for GitHub Actions. This eliminates the need for constant commits and push cycles to verify workflow changes, streamlining development and providing a more efficient workflow within the familiar IDE environment. By leveraging the local development environment, Actionate helps catch errors early and accelerates the iteration cycle for creating and refining GitHub Actions workflows.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Actionate, finding the concept intriguing and useful for automating tasks within JetBrains IDEs. Some questioned the practical advantages over existing solutions like using the command line directly or scripting within the IDEs. Concerns were raised about performance overhead and potential instability due to relying on Docker. A suggestion was made to support background execution for improved usability. Others pointed out that IDE features like macros and built-in task runners could often fulfill similar automation needs. The security implications of running arbitrary code pulled from GitHub Actions were also discussed. Overall, while acknowledging the tool's potential, many commenters advocated for simpler solutions for common IDE automation tasks.
JReleaser simplifies and automates project releases across various platforms. It streamlines the process of creating release artifacts, generating checksums, and publishing them to a variety of distribution channels, including package managers like Homebrew, SDKMAN!, and Chocolatey, as well as artifact repositories like Maven Central, and GitHub Releases. JReleaser supports multiple project types (Java, Go, Kotlin, etc.) and offers flexible configuration through its declarative approach, allowing developers to define release logic in a centralized manner and avoid tedious manual steps. This frees up developers to focus on coding rather than deployment logistics.
Hacker News users generally reacted positively to JReleaser, praising its simplicity and ease of use compared to more complex tools. Several commenters appreciated its support for various platforms and package managers, finding it particularly useful for Java projects but also applicable to other languages. Some pointed out potential alternatives like goreleaser, while others discussed the benefits of standardizing release processes. A few users inquired about specific features, such as signing and checksum generation, while others shared their personal experiences using JReleaser for their own projects. The overall sentiment leaned towards JReleaser being a valuable tool for streamlining and automating the release process.
The author details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions where a seemingly simple workflow to build and deploy a static website became incredibly complex and time-consuming due to caching issues. Despite attempting various caching strategies and workarounds, builds remained slow and unpredictable, ultimately leading to increased costs and wasted developer time. The author concludes that while GitHub Actions might be suitable for straightforward tasks, its caching mechanism's unreliability makes it a poor choice for more complex projects, especially those involving static site generation. They ultimately opted to migrate to a self-hosted solution for improved control and predictability.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's sentiment about GitHub Actions' complexity and unreliability. Many shared similar experiences with flaky builds, obscure error messages, and difficulty debugging. Several commenters suggested exploring alternatives like GitLab CI, Drone CI, or self-hosted runners for more control and predictability. Some pointed out the benefits of GitHub Actions, such as its tight integration with GitHub and the availability of pre-built actions, but acknowledged the frustrations raised in the article. The discussion also touched upon the trade-offs between convenience and control when choosing a CI/CD solution, with some arguing that the ease of use initially offered by GitHub Actions can be overshadowed by the difficulties encountered as projects grow more complex. A few users offered specific troubleshooting tips or workarounds for common issues, highlighting the community-driven nature of problem-solving around GitHub Actions.
Summary of Comments ( 50 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601356
Hacker News commenters generally agree that Bazel's remote caching and execution are powerful features, offering significant build speed improvements. Several users shared positive experiences, particularly with large monorepos. Some pointed out the steep learning curve and initial setup complexity as drawbacks, with one commenter mentioning it took their team six months to fully integrate Bazel. The discussion also touched upon the benefits for dependency management and build reproducibility. A few commenters questioned Bazel's suitability for smaller projects, suggesting the overhead might outweigh the advantages. Others expressed interest in alternative build systems like BuildStream and Buck2. A recurring theme was the desire for better documentation and easier integration with various languages and platforms.
The Hacker News post titled "The next generation of Bazel builds" (linking to a blogsystem5.substack.com article about Bazel) has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which delve into the nuances and practicalities of using Bazel.
Several commenters discuss Bazel's performance characteristics. One notes that while Bazel boasts impressive incremental build speeds, clean builds can be significantly slower, sometimes even outpaced by traditional tools like Make. Another commenter points out the high resource demands of Bazel, particularly its memory consumption, posing challenges for developers with limited resources.
The conversation also touches upon Bazel's complexity and the learning curve associated with its adoption. Some commenters acknowledge the initial investment required to understand Bazel's concepts and configuration but argue that the long-term benefits in terms of build speed and scalability justify the effort. Others express frustration with the perceived opacity of Bazel's inner workings and the difficulty of debugging build issues.
A few commenters share their experiences with Bazel in different environments. One recounts success using Bazel to manage a complex C++ project, praising its ability to handle dependencies and enforce build consistency. Another describes challenges integrating Bazel with existing workflows and tooling.
The topic of remote caching and execution also emerges, with commenters highlighting the potential for significant performance gains by leveraging shared caches and distributed build infrastructure. However, the discussion also acknowledges the practical considerations of setting up and maintaining such systems.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of Bazel as a powerful but complex build tool. While many appreciate its capabilities, they also acknowledge the challenges and trade-offs involved in its adoption. The discussion doesn't reach a definitive consensus on whether Bazel is the "right" tool for every project, suggesting that the decision depends heavily on the specific needs and context of the development team.