Added the ability to change runner and use SSH or a container (Docker)

[JulienBreux]

Hello 👋🏻

After the proposition of the amazing import feature.

I would to propose an other feature : The ability to change runner.

Proposition

With three possible runners:

• local: this is currently used
• remote: use the SSH transport
• container: use a Docker container image

Local runner

The local runner is the backward compatible runner currently used in Task.

version: '1/2/3'

tasks:
  goVersion:
     cmds:
     - go version

Remote runner

The remote runner use the SSH transport.

version: '4'

tasks:
  goVersion:
    remote: ssh://[email protected]:22 # password or key configured via ~/.ssh/config
    cmds:
    - go version

Container runner

version: '4'

tasks:
  goVersion:
    image: golang:1.16-alpine
    cmds:
    - go version

Motivation

At @ornikar, all of our tasks files start with - docker...

List of 📌 questions

• ...
• ...

[weeping-somnambulist]

Interesting idea. I think there is a use for this for lots of different scenarios. I personally could see this being exceptionally useful with Buildah and Podman. My Taskfiles are rather similar in that they often start with buildah run or podman run. I think that the remote idea would be especially useful for cloud environments. In fact it opens the door for lots of integrations, such as with Pulumi and Terraform.

How would you envision this working? Do you think that supporting a specific list of backends such as SSH and Docker/Podman out of the box would be the way, or do you think these should be add-on modules?

[andreynering]

Hi again @JulienBreux!

I think that people use Docker from within Taskfiles often enough that having a deeper integration would be useful. I have in mind to eventually work on something, but I can't premise when.

FYI, these proposals came before at #377 and #285.

The person that made the initial draft of #285 created another project (but in Typescript): hammerkit. I also saw this recently on Hacker News: https://earthly.dev/. It's not clear how an integration with Docker would work, but we could take some inspiration from these projects.

[JulienBreux]

a deeper integration would be useful
I'm not agree with this vision because I think that 'll be cool to use this amazing tools without Docker CLI.

And in the linked propositions, there are all the thumbs up ;) But unfortunately not listen by author.

No problem it's perhaps time to fork this project on my side ^^.

[andreynering]

You're free to do whatever you want

I'd just like to say that I disagree with you that I'm not listening to the community.

Two important points:

• Whatever is added to the code base I have to maintain forever. So yes, I like to be sure if I want a feature and how it should work before we have it. I have learned in the past that being to quick to accept proposals sometimes harms the project in the long term
• I have a life outside of GitHub, a full time job, etc. My time to work on this is limited. This is by far the greater contributor to features taking long to be released, not because "I don't want to listen to the community"

[JulienBreux]

@andreynering sorry, I apologize to you if I have offended you.

And I fully understand that. I just want to help and improve this awesome project.

So sorry, as we say in French: who loves well chastises well!

And I love this project.

I apologize to you personally once again. @andreynering 🥺

[andreynering]

I wasn't offended, just wanted to explain why things are slow paced here sometimes.

Anyway apologies accepted! 😄

[JulienBreux]

We can /close this discussion.