Have `besd` image version tag use the same version scheme as the rest of the images built in hyrax-docker

[hannahilea]

Currently the opendap/besd:{version_tag} image tag is based on the bes version from the built recipe. This means that the besd image tag versions do not match the versions of any of the other images built and tagged in a given hyrax-docker build.

After we switch our version numbering approach to incorporate the hyrax-docker build number (ref: #122), consider updating the besd image to use this same hyrax-docker-based version scheme.

Pros:

• All images built by a given hyrax-docker run will have the same version number (currently besd is a special snowflake)
• hyrax-docker structure will be represented in the besd image (as explained in Update image versioning approach to include changes to hyrax-docker #122)

Cons:

• besd's docker tag will no longer be identical to the bes version contained. (I think this is fine, but it might be annoying to downstream ngap users? We should at least discuss first.)

This might lead to a disconnect in numbers used, and we should talk about how to handle that---especially since the bes version number is currently higher than its corresponding hyrax number would be.

Alternatively, if we don't want the besd version tag to be identical to that of hyrax-docker, we should discuss if there's a different way to reference the included hyrax-docker version in the besd version tag.

[ndp-opendap]

Honestly the BES is the same as libdap and the OLFS

• The libdap build number at the end of the version is the build number of the libdap package created by Travis. The libdap build number is the libdap Travis Build number minus the travis build number of the last official release.
• The BES build number at the end of the version is the build number of the BES package created by Travis. The BES build number is the BES Travis Build number minus the Travis Build number of the last official release.
• The OLFS build number at the end of the version is the build number of the OLFS package created by Travis. The OLFS build number is the OLFS Travis Build number minus the travis build number of the last official release.

[hannahilea]

Yes, and that makes sense.

I'm proposing that the image tagged by hyrax-docker use the same version tag as the rest of hyrax-docker. Right now, for example, our master branch images are:

opendap/hyrax:1.17.1-733-el8
opendap/hyrax:ngap-1.17.1-733-el8
opendap/hyrax_ncwms:1.17.1-733-el8
opendap/besd:3.21.1-1106-el8

There is both (a) no link back to the hyrax-docker machinery that build this besd image (#122) and (b) no indication that it was built in tandem with these other images that contain it.

[hannahilea]

But, for the record, this issue matter seems a lot less important to me than #122, although it involves the same underlying concern.

[ndp-opendap]

There is both (a) no link back to the hyrax-docker machinery that build this besd image (#122) and (b) no indication that it was built in tandem with these other images that contain it.

Well there is actually. You can see all these version tags in the git log and git tags. And (at least until now) we knew that the BES was building Rpms with the exact same numbers. So we could got to the Travis/GitHub jobs/tags in the BES project to find the BES code that was opendap/besd:3.21.75-764

[ndp-opendap]

This is making me realize that without the RPMs the checkpoints are more fluid...

Do you have a sense of how the build version and all this will be affected?

Like with this docker build architecture are we able to get the Hyrax version response from a running server and easily find the commit of each component that was used to craft the docker image??

[hannahilea]

Update: The solution we converged on for #122 includes the besd image, so we no longer need to reconsider any special behavior here.

[hannahilea]

@ndp-opendap I'm going to copy your above questions about the RPM change to #107, and answer there.

[hannahilea]

Implemented as of #133.