feat: split js_image_layer into fine grained layers#1712
Conversation
ed8bd25 to
6727245
Compare
|
I think we should put node and node_modules into same layer as those are less likely to change. |
|
hmm how about; |
1e4fb86 to
95db098
Compare
They could; node_modules_links include 1p links but won't change as much as the actual contents of the 1p links. Is there a downside to more fine grained layers? |
95db098 to
87ed10f
Compare
|
Other than network round trip not really, more the better, but i am afraid that we are splitting it too much that it will be confusing. |
Its transparent for users of rules_oci tho right since |
|
Makes sense, i guess this is fine, fine grained layering will give users more power. |
0f35785 to
b66324b
Compare
|
Completely agree with fine-grained layering along these lines - it should save a lot of bandwidth and time for orgs that have 100+ services. Thanks @gregmagolan! |
|
I think this PR has a bad rebase, @gregmagolan could you fix that before i can take a look? |
b66324b to
a1823d0
Compare
Ahh yes, the base branch was rebased which messed up the commits. All clean again now. |


Resolves #1641.
This change splits the output of js_image_layer into 5 layers:
nodelayer contains Node.js and the node fs patchespackage_store_3players containers all 3p deps in the.aspect_rules_jspackage storepackage_store_1players containers all 1p deps in the.aspect_rules_jspackage storenode_moduleslayer contains allnode_modules/foosymlinks into the packages toreapplayer contains everything that doesn't fall into any of the above layers