Skip to content

Initial setup#2

Merged
magley merged 8 commits into
developfrom
feature-setup
Jul 23, 2025
Merged

Initial setup#2
magley merged 8 commits into
developfrom
feature-setup

Conversation

@magley

@magley magley commented Jul 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is the initial setup of the user microservice.

It includes dockerization, connecting to PostgreSQL and a simple workflow that tests the app and builds it. It doesn't deploy to DockerHub because I didn't bother setting up semantic versioning and all that stuff.

Build and run using docker compose.
To test the server, run curl http://localhost:8080/ping from a different terminal. It should return "Pong!".

You can also do automatic testing via run-tests.sh which is a stub for now. You need bash to test it (so Linux or Git Bash or WSL (not recommended because of line ending differences, I couldn't get it to work)). I could add a Powershell script too, but the CI/CD workflow will only use .sh.

Things I have added:

  • multi-stage build
  • dockerfile caching
  • github action dependency caching

Things I haven't added:

  • publishing to DockerHub (already mentioned above)
  • support for integration tests (too early to decide what we're going to do about this)
  • tracing, logging and monitoring
  • advanced code analysis (we only need to do this for one microservice, but still)
  • test coverage report atrifacts (do we need this?)

Also, apparently, the paths: field in github actions workflows checks for the entire PR, and not just the commit. That's why b8bca1e triggered the Actions to run even if it changed only a .md which doesn't match paths:

@magley
magley requested a review from Vasilijez July 22, 2025 13:20
@magley magley self-assigned this Jul 22, 2025
@magley magley added the feature New functional or non-functional requirement implementation. label Jul 22, 2025

@Vasilijez Vasilijez left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You established a nice initial setup.

Regarding "test coverage report artifacts (do we need this?)", I guess we should check with the assistant. I'm ready to send him a message about it.

Comment thread README.md
@Vasilijez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I only have read access, which is why my review approval didn’t count.

@magley
magley merged commit 283b636 into develop Jul 23, 2025
2 checks passed
@Vasilijez Vasilijez mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

feature New functional or non-functional requirement implementation.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants