feat: Development Container

[SteveDala]

Description

The motivation behind this work is to create a reproducible environment to work on the Thoth Tech documentation. Further to not wanting to install node.js on my Windows machine, I prefer to open a Docker or development container and just go from there. This should also solve any cross-platform dependency problems among team members.

This PR is inspired by thoth-tech/doubtfire-astro #64.

Type of change

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested?

1. Open the repository folder in VSCode. VSCode should have the "Remote Development Extension Pack" installed.
2. Using the command palette (Ctrl + Shift + P on Windows), use the command "Reopen in Container".
3. Wait for the container to build.
4. When the container is built, astro v4.16.19 will report that the site is ready at http://localhost:4321.

Note well that after the container is up and running, the site still needs to compile before the server is ready to show the output on localhost:4321; the last local run I did with VSCode took 2 minutes to compile after the server was up. This is because the site is quite bloated and requires cleanup that is outside of the scope of this new feature addition.

5. Vite should watch your container's mount of the src/content/docs directory for any changes and rebuild when changes are made.

Testing Checklist

• [ ] Have run npm run format - This would make the diff for this change impossible to read. This needs its own PR.
• Have run npm run build
• Have run npm run dev and/or npm run preview, using:
  • Chrome/Edge
  • Safari
  • Firefox - Note: you may need to use the IPv6 http://[::1]:4321

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have requested a review from the Documentation Team on the Pull Request

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for thoth-tech ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	18f78fd
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/thoth-tech/deploys/697df5c08c20a60008296125
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-159--thoth-tech.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[ishika021]

I just went through the devcontainer config added in this pull request and it all looks really well thought out and it should ultimately make local development easier and more consistent for contributors.

The good stuff:

• A new .devcontainer/devcontainer.json file has been created as part of this PR which uses Docker Compose as well as forwarding port 4321, which is also a standard and clear way of doing things.
• There is also a .devcontainer/docker-compose.yml file containing proper bind mounts and a named node_modules volume which is a good pattern for a devcontainer and will help reduce problems with local environments.
• The removal of .devcontainer/Dockerfile also makes sense as the devcontainer now uses the Dockerfile from the root, making it easier to maintain a single build config.

Things to note/suggest:

• Along with the devcontainer changes, there were a few other changes committed in the PR (e.g. the regeneration of a package-lock and an upstream merge) which if possible, could have been better split into another PR, helping to keep the scope of the change focused.
• The devcontainer currently forwards port 4321, so to confirm that this is indeed the correct development port, it would be good to make sure that all the configuration files/ documentation are consistent, in case the port does change.

I think all of the changes are good, and will help to create a better experience for developers.

[SteveDala]

@BrianDangDev an approving review from you when possible would be greatly appreciated.

[BrianDangDev]

Hi @SteveDala, can you check the workflow error? It seems those files have extra whitespace at the bottom, which caused the workflow to fail

[SteveDala]

Thanks for the heads up @BrianDangDev, I believe the issue is that those files had no trailing empty line. This has now been fixed. Could you kick off the workflow again and approve if successful?

[SteveDala]

@BrianDangDev looks like #164 (prettier lint) may have to be merged first in order to successfully pass the checks.

[BrianDangDev]

fewer warning messages this time, almost there👍

[SteveDala]

@BrianDangDev I have resolved all build and linting issues. An approving review is still required from you to merge this change if appropriate.