I am trying to run a local script with docker bash in windows PowerShell but not working.
My script part is another program, but the finally goal is to process a media file and zip it with the shell script.
The cmd: docker exec -it containername /bin/bash < myscript.sh -f fileone.mp4 -h output
I have an error in ps:
The '<' operator is reserved for future use.
The parameters (and also the files) are changing, if rerun the shell script, and after the script, processing is done it will create a zip file (what I need) with the output name, but random strings will be placed to the zipped filename too.
Anyone tried to use docker in that way in windows?
I figure out a solution for my own question. I just leave it here, if someone needs it.
The docker-compose file:
version: '3.8'
services:
somename:
build:
context: .
dockerfile: Dockerfile
container_name: 'name_if_you_need'
The dockerfile:
FROM debian:latest
# Install and/or config anything what you need
ADD . /newfolder
WORKDIR /newfolder
ENTRYPOINT [ "/newfolder/myscript.sh" ]
To call (with arguments and/or flags if your script need it): docker run --rm -v ${PWD}:/newfolder image_name -flag1 sample.mp4 -flag2 sample (no tty error, not need winpty)
Please note, if your script working with file or files, and you pass it via arguments like me, you need to copy them in your current folder before docker run
With this solution, if your script generates a file or files when/after executing, you will see them automatically in your current folder.
Related
I am a docker beginner. I have used this SO post to run a shell script with docker run and this works fine. However, what I am trying to do is to apply my shell script to a file that lives in my current working directory, where Dockerfile and script are.
My shell script - given a file as an argument, return its name and the number of lines:
#!/bin/bash
echo $1
wc -l $1
Dockerfile:
FROM ubuntu
COPY ./file.sh /
CMD /bin/bash file.sh
then build and run:
docker build -t test .
docker run -ti test /file.sh text_file
This is what I get:
text_file
wc: text_file: No such file or directory
I'm left clueless why the second line doesn't work, why the file can't be found. I don't want to copy my text_file to the container. Ideally, I'd like to run my script from docker container on any file in my current working directory.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!!
You're building your Docker image containing the script /file.sh. Still, your Docker container does not contain (or know) about the file text_file which you're passing as an argument.
In order to make it known to your Docker container, you have to mount it when running the container.
docker run --rm -it -v "$PWD"/text_file:/text_file test /file.sh /text_file
In order to check for other files, you just have to swap text_file in both the mount and the argument.
Notes
In addition to Docker volume mounts, I might suggest some more improvements to spice up your image.
In order to run a script, you don't have to use ubuntu as your base image. You might be fine with alpine or even more focused bash. And don't forget to use tags in order to enforce the exact same behavior over time.
You can set your script as an ENTRYPOINT of your Dockerfile. Then, your only specifying the script name (text_file in that case) as your command.
When mounting files, you can change the name of the file in your container. Therefore, you can simplify your script and just mounting the file to test at the exact same place every time you run the container.
FROM alpine:3.10
WORKDIR /tmp
COPY file.sh /usr/local/bin/wordcount
ENTRYPOINT /usr/local/bin/wordcount
CMD file
Then,
docker run --rm -it -v "PWD"/text_file:/tmp/file test
will do the job.
I'm having trouble understanding or seeing some working version of using a bash script as an Entrypoint for a Docker container. I've been trying numerous things for about 5 hours now.
Even from this official Docker blog, using a bash-script as an entry-point still doesn't work.
Dockerfile
FROM debian:stretch
COPY docker-entrypoint.sh /usr/local/bin/
RUN ln -s /usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh / # backwards compat
ENTRYPOINT ["docker-entrypoint.sh"]
CMD ["postgres"]
docker-entrypoint.sh
#!/bin/bash
set -e
if [ "$1" = 'postgres' ]; then
chown -R postgres "$PGDATA"
if [ -z "$(ls -A "$PGDATA")" ]; then
gosu postgres initdb
fi
exec gosu postgres "$#"
fi
exec "$#"
build.sh
docker build -t test .
run.sh
docker service create \
--name test \
test
Despite many efforts, I can't seem to get Dockerfile using an Entrypoint as a bash script that doesn't continuously restart and fail repeatedly.
My understanding is that exec "$#" was suppose to keep the container form immediately exiting, but I'm not sure if that's dependent some other process within the script failing.
I've tried using a docker-entrypoint.sh script that simply looked like this:
#!/bin/bash
exec "$#"
And since that also failed, I think that rules out something else going wrong inside the script being the cause of the failure.
What's also frustrating is there are no logs, either from docker service logs test or docker logs [container_id], and I can't seem to find anything useful in docker inspect [container_id].
I'm having trouble understanding everyone's confidence in exec "$#". I don't want to resort to using something like tail -f /dev/null or using a command at docker run. I was hoping that there would be some consistent, reliable way that a docker-entrypoint.sh script could reliably used to start services that I could run with docker run as well for other things for services, but even on Docker's official blog and countless questions here and blogs from other sites, I can't seem get a single example to work.
I would really appreciate some insight into what I'm missing here.
$# is just a string of the command line arguments. You are providing none, so it is executing a null string. That exits and will kill the docker. However, the exec command will always exit the running script - it destroys the current shell and starts a new one, it doesn't keep it running.
What I think you want to do is keep calling this script in kind of a recursive way. To actually have the script call itself, the line would be:
exec $0
$0 is the name of the bash file (or function name, if in a function). In this case it would be the name of your script.
Also, I am curious your desire not to use tail -f /dev/null? Creating a new shell over and over as fast as the script can go is not more performant. I am guessing you want this script to run over and over to just check your if condition.
In that case, a while(1) loop would probably work.
What you show, in principle, should work, and is one of the standard Docker patterns.
The interaction between ENTRYPOINT and CMD is pretty straightforward. If you provide both, then the main container process is whatever ENTRYPOINT (or docker run --entrypoint) specifies, and it is passed CMD (or the command at the end of docker run) as arguments. In this context, ending an entrypoint script with exec "$#" just means "replace me with the CMD as the main container process".
So, the pattern here is
Do some initial setup, like chowning a possibly-external data directory; then
exec "$#" to run whatever was passed as the command.
In your example there are a couple of things worth checking; it won't run as shown.
Whatever you provide as the ENTRYPOINT needs to obey the usual rules for executable commands: if it's a bare command, it must be in $PATH; it must have the executable bit set in its file permissions; if it's a script, its interpreter must also exist; if it's a binary, it must be statically linked or all of its shared library dependencies must be in the image already. For your script you might need to make it executable if it isn't already
RUN chmod +x /usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh
The other thing with this setup is that (definitionally) if the ENTRYPOINT exits, the whole container exits, and the Bourne shell set -e directive tells the script to exit on any error. In the artifacts in the question, gosu isn't a standard part of the debian base image, so your entrypoint will fail (and your container will exit) trying to run that command. (That won't affect the very simple case though.)
Finally, if you run into trouble running a container under an orchestration system like Docker Swarm or Kubernetes, one of your first steps should be to run the same container, locally, in the foreground: use docker run without the -d option and see what it prints out. For example:
% docker build .
% docker run --rm c5fb7da1c7c1
docker: Error response from daemon: OCI runtime create failed: container_linux.go:345: starting container process caused "exec: \"docker-entrypoint.sh\": executable file not found in $PATH": unknown.
ERRO[0000] error waiting for container: context canceled
% chmod +x docker-entrypoint.sh
% docker build .
% docker run --rm f5a239f2758d
/usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh: line 3: exec: postgres: not found
(Using the Dockerfile and short docker-entrypoint.sh from the question, and using the final image ID from docker build . in those docker run commands.)
How can I include my own shell script CMD on container start/restart/attach, without removing the CMD used by an inherited image?
I am using this, which does execute my script fine, but appears to overwrite the PHP CMD:
FROM php
COPY start.sh /usr/local/bin
CMD ["/usr/local/bin/start.sh"]
What should I do differently? I am avoiding the prospect of copy/pasting the ENTRYPOINT or CMD of the parent image, and maybe that's not a good approach.
As mentioned in the comments, there's no built-in solution to this. From the Dockerfile, you can't see the value of the current CMD or ENTRYPOINT. Having a run-parts solution is nice if you control the upstream base image and include this code there, allowing downstream components to make their changes. But docker there's one inherent issue that will cause problems with this, containers should only run a single command that needs to run in the foreground. So if the upstream image kicks off, it would stay running without giving your later steps a chance to run, so you're left with complexities to determine the order to run commands to ensure that a single command does eventually run without exiting.
My personal preference is a much simpler and hardcoded option, to add my own command or entrypoint, and make the last step of my command to exec the upstream command. You will still need to manually identify the script name to call from the upstream Dockerfile. But now in your start.sh, you would have:
#!/bin/sh
# run various pieces of initialization code here
# ...
# kick off the upstream command:
exec /upstream-entrypoint.sh "$#"
By using an exec call, you transfer pid 1 to the upstream entrypoint so that signals get handled correctly. And the trailing "$#" passes through any command line arguments. You can use set to adjust the value of $# if there are some args you want to process and extract in your own start.sh script.
If the base image is not yours, you unfortunately have to call the parent command manually.
If you own the parent image, you can try what the people at camptocamp suggest here.
They basically use a generic script as an entry point that calls run-parts on a directory. What that does is run all scripts in that directory in lexicographic order. So when you extend an image, you just have to put your new scripts in that same folder.
However, that means you'll have to maintain order by prefixing your scripts which could potentially get out of hand. (Imagine the parent image decides to add a new script later...).
Anyway, that could work.
Update #1
There is a long discussion on this docker compose issue about provisioning after container run. One suggestion is to wrap you docker run or compose command in a shell script and then run docker exec on your other commands.
If you'd like to use that approach, you basically keep the parent CMD as the run command and you place yours as a docker exec after your docker run.
Using mysql image as an example
Do docker inspect mysql/mysql-server:5.7 and see that:
Config.Cmd="mysqld"
Config.Entrypoint="/entrypoint.sh"
which we put in bootstrap.sh (remember to chmod a+x):
#!/bin/bash
echo $HOSTNAME
echo "Start my initialization script..."
# docker inspect results used here
/entrypoint.sh mysqld
Dockerfile is now:
FROM mysql/mysql-server:5.7
# put our script inside the image
ADD bootstrap.sh /etc/bootstrap.sh
# set to run our script
ENTRYPOINT ["/bin/sh","-c"]
CMD ["/etc/bootstrap.sh"]
Build and run our new image:
docker build --rm -t sidazhou/tmp-mysql:5.7 .
docker run -it --rm sidazhou/tmp-mysql:5.7
Outputs:
6f5be7c6d587
Start my initialization script...
[Entrypoint] MySQL Docker Image 5.7.28-1.1.13
[Entrypoint] No password option specified for new database.
...
...
You'll see this has the same output as the original image:
docker run -it --rm mysql/mysql-server:5.7
[Entrypoint] MySQL Docker Image 5.7.28-1.1.13
[Entrypoint] No password option specified for new database.
...
...
I have a container that is running with no issues. I added a bash script to compliment a couple other scripts already in the container. The docker image copy 2 scripts to /usr/local/bin and they can be accessed with docker exec -c container-name existingscript.
I added my own script to the same directory and when running the same command I get an error that exec cannot run the script: no file or directory,script not located in $PATH. I check path and sure enough, /usr/local/bin is listed. I checked permissions and the script is 755.
I then open an interactive shell with docker exec -it mycontainer bash and run /usr/local/bin/myscript and it runs with no problem.
Why can I not run the script from outside the container like I can the other two (that were included in the image). All three have almost the same functions a day do not use any special programs, one lists files, one adds files, one reads the file.
The base is Ubuntu.
EDIT: Found where I was running into the issue. Provided the answer in case anyone else happens to make the same mistake.
EDIT-2: So the script that came with the docker image to perform a couple common functions calls the image not the container so my adding the scripts to the container had no effect on the script which was why I kept getting the no file or directory error.
The line in the script in question was:
docker run --rm -v "$(pwd)/config":/path/to/file -ti image_name:latest" mynewscript $#
Of course that ran against the image and NOT the container.
Once I noticed that I tried running it with exec instead of run and it ran without error, like so:
docker exec -it container_name mynewscript
The reason is "/usr/local/bin" not in your script's $PATH, you can use /usr/local/bin/myscript explicitly in your script. Or export $PATH first in the script.
While I was adding snippets to help explain the issue I found the problem and the solution.
So I access the scripts inside the container from the host with another script that allows you to do different things based on switch case. The scripts are called against the docker image and not the container so the script I added does not actually exist in the image.
I modified the script to call the container instead of the image and it works as expected.
EDIT: I updated the question with the answer but I am adding it here as well:
So the script that came with the docker image to perform a couple common functions calls the image not the container so my adding the scripts to the container had no effect on the script which was why I kept getting the no file or directory error.
The line in the script in question was:
docker run --rm -v "$(pwd)/config":/path/to/file -ti image_name:latest" mynewscript $#
Of course that ran against the image and NOT the container.
Once I noticed that I tried running it with exec instead of run and it ran without error, like so:
docker exec -it container_name mynewscript
I am very new to docker, and I need help to dockerize a ruby script that takes a a input directory and output directory.
i.e generate_rr_pair.rb BuildRR -n /data/ -o /output
What the script does, is it will take the -n option (input) and check if the directory exists, if it does it uses the files inside as input. The script will then output data to the -o option (output). If the output directory doesn't exist, the script will create the directory and output files there.
How can I create a Dockerfile to handle this? Should I pass these in, as environment variables? Or should I use mounted Volumes? But since the script handles fileIO, I am not sure if I want volumes. The input directory should already exist on the host, and the output directory will get created. Both directories, should remain after docker container stops.
Use the official ruby image in your docker file:
FROM ruby:2.1-onbuild
CMD ["ruby", "generate_rr_pair.rb"]
Building the container as normal
docker build -t myruby .
Which can then be run as follows:
docker run --rm -it -v /data:/data -v /output:/output myruby BuildRR -n /data -o /output
Note that volume mappings are required if you want the ruby script within the container to operate on directories mounted on the host machine.