Sure, but what you “get done” on your own is statistically irrelevant. To achieve useful, measurable success in the fight against climate change, collective action must be taken at scale. That’s government.

This has strong Alfur energy.

Depending on how complicated you’re willing to allow it to be to run locally, you could just run a webserver right on the desktop. Bind it to localhost:8000 so there’s no risk of someone exploiting it via the network, anf then your startup script is just:

1. Start webserver
2. Open browser to http://localhost:800/

It’s not smooth, or professional-looking, but it’s easy ;-)

If you want something a little more slick, I would probably lean more toward “Path 2” as you call it. The webserver isn’t really necessary after all, since you’re not even using a network.

One option that you might not have considered however could be to rewrite the whole thing in JavaScript and port it to a static web page. Hosting costs on something like that approaches £0, but you have to write JavaScript :-(

So long as politicians are all painted with the same negative brush, there’s no room for anyone with a genuine interest in improving things. There are some truly great, caring people in politics working hard to do the right thing. It’s not their fault the public keeps voting for assholes.

How do you test for lead though?

How the hell do I find cinnamon that didn’t have lead in it?

This has very Radicalised vibes.

Nope, pipx definitely can’t do that, but the idea that running your yourscript.py --help will automatically trigger the downloading of dependencies and installing them somewhere isn’t really appealing. I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s got uv configured to install the virtualenv in the local .venv folder rather than buried into my home dir, so this would come with the added surprise that every time I invoke the script, I’d get a new set of dependencies installed wherever I happen to be.

I mean, it’s neat that you can do this, but as a user I wouldn’t appreciate the surprise behaviour. pipx isn’t perfect, but at least it lets you manage things like updates.

This looks like a reimplementation of pipx.

The source looks like https://linktr.ee/massesutd though the dude doesn’t appear to have a website, just links to a bunch of gated websites that I can’t access without an account.

Who do you think the rich steal from?

But there’s nothing stopping you from loading realistic (or even real) data into a system like this. They’re entirely different concepts. Indeed, I’ve loaded gigabytes of production data into systems similar to what I’m proposing here (taking all necessary precautions of course). At one company, I even built a system that pulled production into a developer-friendly snapshot while simultaneously pseudo-anonymising that data so it can be safely (for some value of ${safe}) be tinkered with in development.

In fact, adhering to a system like this makes such things easier, since you don’t have to make any concessions to “this is how we do it in development”. You just pull a snapshot from the environment you want to work with and load it into your Compose session.

It sounds like you’re confusing the application with the data. Nothing in this model requires the use of production data.

I feel like you must have read an entirely different post, which must be a failing in my writing.

I would never condone baking secrets into a compose file, which is why the values in compose.yaml aren’t secrets. The idea is that your compose file is used exclusively for testing and development, where the data isn’t real, and the priority is easing development. When you deploy, you don’t use that compose file because your environment is populated by whatever you use in production (typically Kubernetes these days).

You should not store your development database password in a .env file because it’s not a secret. The AWS keys listed in the compose are meant to be exactly as they are there: XXX, because LocalStack doesn’t care what these values are, only that they exist.

As for the CLI thing, again I think you’ve missed the point. The idea is to start from a position of “I’m building images” and therefore neve have a “local app, (Django, sqlite)” because sqlite should not be used unless that’s what’s used in production. There should be little to no difference between development and production, so scripting a bridge between these doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I don’t mean to be snarky, but I feel like you didn’t actually read the post 'cause pretty much everything you’ve suggested is the opposite of what I was trying to say.

• A CLI to make things simple sounds nice, but given that the whole idea is to harmonise the develop/test/deploy process, writing a whole program to hide the differences is counterproductive.
• Config settings should be hard-coded into your docker-compose file and absolutely not stored in .json or .env files. The litmus test here is: “How many steps does it take to get this project running?” If it’s more than 1 (docker compose up) it’s too many.
• Suggesting that one package Django into a single Lambda seems like an odd take on a post about Docker.

High praise! Just keep in mind that my blog is a mixed bag of topics. A little code, lots of politics, and some random stuff to boot.

It’s a tough one, but there are a few options.

For AWS, my favourite one is LocalStack, a Docker image that you can stand up like any other service and then tell it to emulate common AWS services: S3, Lamda, etc. They claim to support 80 different services which is… nuts. They’ve got a strange licensing model though, which last time I used it meant that they support some of the more common services for free, but if you want more you gotta pay… and they aren’t cheap. I don’t know if anything like this exists for Azure.

The next-best choice is to use a stand-in. Many cloud services are just managed+branded Free software projects. RDS is either PostgreSQL or MySQL, ElastiCache is just Redis, etc. For these, you can just stand up a copy of the actual service and since the APIs are identical, you should be fine. Where it gets tricky is when the cloud provider has messed with the API or added functionality that doesn’t exist elsewhere. SQS for example is kind of like RabbitMQ but not.

In those cases, it’s a question of how your application interacts with this service. If it’s by way of an external package (say Celery to SQS for example), then using RabbitMQ locally and SQS in production is probably fine because it’s Celery that’s managing the distinction and not you. They’ve done the work of testing compatibility, so theoretically you don’t have to.

If however your application is the kind of thing that interacts with this service on a low level, opening a direct connection and speaking its protocol yourself, that’s probably not a good idea.

That leaves the third option, which isn’t great, but I’ve done it and it’s not so bad: use the cloud service in development. Normally this is done by having separate services spun up per user or even with a role account. When your app writes to an S3 bucket locally, it’s actually writing to a real bucket called companyname-username-projectbucket. With tools like Terraform, the fiddly process of setting all this up can be drastically simplified, so it’s not so bad – just make sure that the developers are aware of the fact that their actions can incur costs is all.

If none of the above are suitable, then it’s probably time to stub out the service and then rely more heavily on a QA or staging environment that’s better reflective of production.

Having used it for work, I really don’t understand the appeal, especially when compared to tools like Poetry. Uv persists in the dependency on requirements.txt, doesn’t streamline the publishing process, and contrary to the claims, it’s not a drop-in replacement for pip, as the command line API is different.

It’s really fast, which is nice if you’re working on a nightmare codebase with 3000 dependencies, but most of us aren’t, and Poetry is pretty damned fast.

If uv offered some of what Poetry does for me, if at the very least we could finally do away with requirements.txt and adopt something more useable – baked into pyproject.toml of course – then I’d be sold. But this is just faster pip.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding vulture. My impression was that it’s meant to be run in your CI, which would mean it’s only privy to code executed by your tests. If it actually attached to production sessions, then yeah that’s pretty handy.

If you ensure 100% test coverage, you don’t need this ;-)