Julien Gautier
774f279785
CI / scan (pull_request) Successful in 3m24s
CI / commits (pull_request) Successful in 3m44s
CI / check (pull_request) Successful in 3m53s
CI / a11y (pull_request) Successful in 4m7s
Docs site / build (pull_request) Successful in 4m18s
CI / perf (pull_request) Successful in 8m36s
Propose an 'apps' Compose profile backed by a shared Dockerfile.dev so developers can 'docker compose up' all three Nx apps (portal-bff, portal-shell, portal-admin) with no native Node/pnpm — addressing onboarding friction (the nvm/.zshrc class of failure) and a concrete request to run the whole stack in one command. Decision-only, proposed status. Profile-gated so the native + devcontainer flows are unchanged; dev-only (production images stay with the ADR-0028 Container Registry follow-up). Takes number 0030 (0029 is reserved for the cascade/Pleiades/Acteurs+ syncs ADR).
113 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: proposed
|
|
date: 2026-05-28
|
|
decision-makers: R&D Lead
|
|
tags: [infrastructure, process]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Dockerised full-stack dev mode — `compose up` runs the Nx apps alongside infra
|
|
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
Today the local **infrastructure** (PostgreSQL / Redis / OTel Collector) runs in Docker via [`infra/local/dev.compose.yml`](../../infra/local/dev.compose.yml), but the **Nx applications** (`portal-bff`, `portal-shell`, `portal-admin`) run **natively** — requiring Node + pnpm installed on the host (workstation or `vm-dev`). Two frictions follow:
|
|
|
|
1. **Onboarding requires the native toolchain.** nvm + corepack + the pinned pnpm is a setup step that fails in non-obvious ways — a fresh-VM install just hit exactly this (the nvm init never reached the zsh session, so `node` / `pnpm` were "command not found").
|
|
2. **A developer asked to run the whole stack with a single `docker compose up`** — no native toolchain, no IDE attach. The use case is real for frontend-focused work, quick demos, and onboarding.
|
|
|
|
How do we offer a "just run everything in Docker" dev mode **without regressing** the two flows that work today (native `nx serve`; the [ADR-0020](0020-portal-admin-app.md)-era VSCode devcontainer)?
|
|
|
|
## Decision Drivers
|
|
|
|
- **Onboarding friction.** The native toolchain (nvm / corepack / pnpm pin) is the step most likely to break for a new dev; the recent `.zshrc` nvm gap is evidence.
|
|
- **A concrete developer request.** `docker compose up` → all servers, zero native Node/pnpm.
|
|
- **Consistency with the all-in-Docker posture.** Infra is already containerised; the apps are the gap.
|
|
- **No regression.** The native `nx serve` flow and the devcontainer flow serve IDE-integrated development + debugging; both must keep working unchanged.
|
|
- **Hot reload is non-negotiable.** Angular/Vite HMR and NestJS watch mode must work inside the containers, or the mode is useless for actual development.
|
|
- **Stable, recognised tooling only** (CLAUDE.md bar) — Docker Compose + the official `node` image, no exotic dev-orchestration layer.
|
|
- **Dev-only scope.** Production images are a separate concern, already earmarked for the GitLab Container Registry after the [ADR-0028](0028-migrate-cicd-and-git-hosting-to-gitlab.md) cutover. This ADR must not entangle dev DX with deployment artefacts.
|
|
|
|
## Considered Options
|
|
|
|
- **Option A — Status quo.** Native apps + the optional devcontainer; no compose-run apps.
|
|
- **Option B — Extend `dev.compose.yml` with an `apps` profile** running the three Nx dev servers from one shared `Dockerfile.dev` (chosen).
|
|
- **Option C — Per-app Dockerfiles + a separate apps compose file**, layered over the infra compose.
|
|
- **Option D — Lean on the devcontainer alone** — tell the developer to use "Reopen in Container".
|
|
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
|
|
|
Chosen option: **B — an `apps` Compose profile backed by a single `Dockerfile.dev`**, because it satisfies the `docker compose up` request, removes the native-toolchain dependency for that audience, and — being **profile-gated** — leaves the infra-only mode (and therefore the native and devcontainer flows) untouched.
|
|
|
|
### Shape of the implementation (specified here, built in the follow-up PR)
|
|
|
|
- **One `Dockerfile.dev`** at `infra/local/` (or repo root): `node:24-bookworm` + corepack activating the pinned pnpm. The monorepo means **one image, one install** serves all three apps.
|
|
- **Three Compose services** — `portal-bff`, `portal-shell`, `portal-admin` — all from that image, differing only by command (`pnpm exec nx serve <app> --host 0.0.0.0`) and published port (`3000` / `4200` / `4300`, matching the devcontainer's `forwardPorts`).
|
|
- **Repo bind-mounted** into each service for hot reload; **`node_modules` (and the Nx cache) held in named volumes**, NOT bind-mounted — this is the load-bearing detail: native modules (`esbuild`, `@swc/core`, Prisma engines, `lmdb`, `@parcel/watcher`) must be the ones installed _inside_ the container, never shadowed by the host's `node_modules`.
|
|
- **`depends_on` the infra services with `condition: service_healthy`** (the compose already defines healthchecks for postgres/redis).
|
|
- **BFF entrypoint**: install-if-cold → `prisma generate` → `prisma migrate deploy` → serve. (`migrate deploy`, not `migrate dev` — apply committed migrations only; never auto-author in a container.)
|
|
- **Env** points at Compose service names: `postgres:5432`, `redis:6379`, `otel-collector:4317` — same `apf-portal-dev` network the devcontainer already joins.
|
|
- **Profile-gated**: the services carry `profiles: [apps]`, so `./infra/local/dev.sh up` stays infra-only (native devs unaffected) and `./infra/local/dev.sh up apps` brings up the full stack.
|
|
|
|
### Three coexisting modes — "which when"
|
|
|
|
The follow-up PR documents this table in `docs/setup/`:
|
|
|
|
| Mode | Toolchain on host | Best for |
|
|
| -------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| **Native** (`nx serve`) | Node + pnpm native | Day-to-day dev with the fastest iteration + simplest debugger attach. |
|
|
| **Devcontainer** | none (Docker) | IDE-integrated dev without a native toolchain; VSCode attaches, you run `nx serve` inside. |
|
|
| **Compose `apps` profile** | none (Docker) | "Run everything with one command" — onboarding, frontend-only work, demos, no IDE attach. |
|
|
|
|
### Consequences
|
|
|
|
- **Good**, because `docker compose --profile apps up` yields the full stack with zero native toolchain — and an onboarding path that structurally cannot hit the nvm/`.zshrc` class of failure.
|
|
- **Good**, because it is consistent with the already-containerised infra and is purely opt-in (profile-gated) — native and devcontainer flows are byte-for-byte unchanged.
|
|
- **Good**, because a single image + single install keeps the monorepo's dev container cheap to build and reason about.
|
|
- **Bad**, because it adds a **third** run mode to document and keep working as the apps evolve — mitigated by the explicit "which when" table and by sharing the infra network/healthchecks already in place.
|
|
- **Bad**, because iteration is marginally slower than native (Nx daemon/cache across the container lifecycle; Vite rebuilds) and **debugger attach needs extra wiring** (inspector port + source-map paths) — acceptable because the target audience for this mode is precisely the one that does not need a step-debugger.
|
|
- **Bad**, because `node_modules` in a named volume means a lockfile bump needs a re-install pass (the entrypoint handles it; first run after a bump is slower) and the image + volumes consume host disk.
|
|
- **Neutral**, because this is **dev-only**: it deliberately produces no deployment artefact. Production images land later with the [ADR-0028](0028-migrate-cicd-and-git-hosting-to-gitlab.md) Container Registry work; if a `Dockerfile.dev` stage can be reused there, that is a bonus, not a goal here.
|
|
|
|
### Confirmation
|
|
|
|
- On a host with **no native Node/pnpm**, a fresh checkout runs `./infra/local/dev.sh up apps` (or the raw `docker compose … --profile apps up`) and reaches: BFF healthy on `:3000`, `portal-shell` on `:4200`, `portal-admin` on `:4300`, all connected to postgres/redis/otel.
|
|
- Editing a source file triggers HMR / watch-reload in the relevant container within a few seconds (validated for at least one app of each type — Angular and NestJS).
|
|
- The infra-only invocation (`dev.sh up`, no `apps`) is unchanged — native devs see no difference.
|
|
- The "which mode when" table lands in `docs/setup/`.
|
|
|
|
## Pros and Cons of the Options
|
|
|
|
### Option A — Status quo (native apps + optional devcontainer)
|
|
|
|
- Good, because zero new surface to maintain.
|
|
- Good, because native iteration is the fastest and debugging is simplest.
|
|
- Bad, because it does not answer the `docker compose up` request.
|
|
- Bad, because every new dev still pays the native-toolchain setup cost (the friction that motivated this ADR).
|
|
|
|
### Option B — `apps` profile + shared `Dockerfile.dev` (chosen)
|
|
|
|
- Good, because one command brings up the full stack with no native toolchain.
|
|
- Good, because profile-gating makes it purely additive — no regression to native/devcontainer.
|
|
- Good, because one image/one install fits the monorepo and is cheap.
|
|
- Neutral, because it reuses the existing `apf-portal-dev` network + healthchecks rather than inventing new infra.
|
|
- Bad, because it is a third documented mode and adds the node_modules-volume + debugger-attach caveats above.
|
|
|
|
### Option C — Per-app Dockerfiles + separate apps compose
|
|
|
|
- Good, because per-app images map cleanly onto eventual production images.
|
|
- Bad, because three Dockerfiles + a second compose file is more surface for a monorepo where one install serves all apps — premature for a dev-only mode.
|
|
- Bad, because a separate compose file fragments the "up" experience (two files to coordinate) vs a profile in the existing one.
|
|
|
|
### Option D — Devcontainer only
|
|
|
|
- Good, because it already exists and already removes the native toolchain.
|
|
- Bad, because it is **interactive / IDE-bound** — you reopen in the container and run `nx serve` by hand. It does not deliver the "one `docker compose up` runs every server" experience the request is about.
|
|
- Bad, because it ties the no-toolchain path to VSCode specifically.
|
|
|
|
## More Information
|
|
|
|
- Complements [ADR-0020](0020-portal-admin-app.md) (the VSCode devcontainer) — this ADR adds a non-interactive, services-oriented sibling, not a replacement.
|
|
- The BFF entrypoint's `prisma generate` + `migrate deploy` follows [ADR-0006](0006-persistence-postgresql-prisma.md); migrations are applied, never authored, inside the container.
|
|
- Production images are **out of scope** and tracked against the [ADR-0028](0028-migrate-cicd-and-git-hosting-to-gitlab.md) Container Registry follow-up (post-cutover).
|
|
- Builds on the existing [`infra/local/dev.compose.yml`](../../infra/local/dev.compose.yml) profiles pattern (`dbtools`, `observability`, `serve-static`) — `apps` is one more profile in the same idiom.
|
|
- Status is `proposed`; on acceptance, update the CLAUDE.md architecture roll-up and add the "which mode when" guidance to `docs/setup/`.
|