Docker support

[Kastet]

Solves #160

Changes:

• adds Dockerfile
• updates README with instructions to use a pre-built image

[mithun]

• Can the Dockerfile be split into multiple stages so that the published image does not necessarily contain the sources and build directory?
• Ideally, the docker image should be published to a Docker Hub repository owned by @yonaskolb. Otherwise, users may not trust it

I have an example of a multi-stage Dockerfile here: https://github.com/mithun/swaggen-docker/blob/master/Dockerfile

[Kastet]

Thanks for this example @mithun, good suggestion!

[yonaskolb]

Is this supposed to be referencing airtasker?

[mithun]

It shouldn't. As a user of the docker image, I will not trust it unless it is published by @yonaskolb , which is why I'm building my own

[mackoj]

Hi,

I do think that having a first party Docker image is crucial for (CI use for exemple).
So I build did my own Docker image by forking @mithun(great) Docker image.

I have made a couple of tweaks from @mithun(great) Docker image:

• updating it to the latest version of Swift
• making it generate image with Swift slim image - 4.2.0(467.93 MB) -> 4.2.0-slim(77.05 MB) 83% smaller 😱
• add a bunch of variable to make it easy to generate images for various tag of my fork of SwagGen

https://hub.docker.com/r/hawkci/swaggen

[mackoj]

After a few months of working with Swaggen in a Docker container I do prefer this workflow. Because it guarantees that it is working the same way as our CI is working. With one script anyone(back/front end dev) in the team can generate a custom version of the library. It's easier to maintain and update. FWIW I do update my Swaggen image for every new Swift build.
Last update was this morning with Swift 5.1.5 it's pretty easy to do.

[mackoj]

@mithun Can your https://github.com/mithun/swaggen-docker take all the same parameter as the official binary ?

[mithun]

@mithun Can your https://github.com/mithun/swaggen-docker take all the same parameter as the official binary ?

Yes