Skip to content

Conversation

@pjonsson
Copy link
Contributor

@pjonsson pjonsson commented Nov 7, 2025

This avoids counting the dirty bit
when computing the version number,
so the partial repository inside
the Docker image doesn't matter.

Fixes #897


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://datacube-explorer--935.org.readthedocs.build/en/935/

This avoids counting the dirty bit
when computing the version number,
so the partial repository inside
the Docker image doesn't matter.

Fixes opendatacube#897
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.14%. Comparing base (f33d623) to head (380577f).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #935   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    84.14%   84.14%           
========================================
  Files           35       35           
  Lines         4207     4207           
  Branches       527      527           
========================================
  Hits          3540     3540           
  Misses         476      476           
  Partials       191      191           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@omad
Copy link
Member

omad commented Nov 8, 2025

Interesting.. but there's a few big drawbacks with this too.

There's no indication in the version number whether the build directory was clean or dirty. Even when building outside of Docker.

I think that what we actually need to do is either get rid of or greatly shrink the .dockerignore file. We're "building" the package inside of docker, and to do that, we need a clean git directory, and working around that is just tying us up in knots.

We manage what gets included in the built docker image in other ways, and .dockerignore is unnecessary. There's small efficiency wins with having it not bloat the build context. For example, with uv it makes a lot of sense to exclude .venv/, otherwise that will all get sent to the builder.

@pjonsson pjonsson marked this pull request as draft November 25, 2025 09:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unclean Version Information in Published Docker Images

3 participants