Discuss creation of Stepup monorepo

[phavekes]

This issue is imported from pivotal - Originaly created at Feb 11, 2020 by bstrooband

To speedup development I would like to discuss the creation of a Stepup monorepo. This will be only for the SA, RA, MW and GW componenets. So all GSSP's will be out-of-scope for now. There could be multiple build targets to build an artifact for the various Stepup components.

This will speed up development a lot and will give atomic versioning. The integration tests could also be moved to this repo. And maintenance will be less time consuming because an upgrade will only have to be done once.

There is currently unexpected coupling between the different components while at first this doesn't seem to be the case. So currently there is no real isolation between the components. There are also bundles used which are tightly coupled to Symfony and PHP versions so this seems to be more window dressing then a real solution to a problem.

See for example: GW

[phavekes]

@pmeulen, @phavekes, @michielkodde what are your thoughts on this? (bstrooband - Feb 11, 2020)

[phavekes]

For me SA, RA, MW and GW (especially the last two) seem very dependent on each other. I've run into issues because a change in GW required a redeploy of MW. I see no reasons for not rolling these components into a 'Stepup-Base', to make development and deployment easier. GSSP's should stay independent. (Peter Havekes - Feb 12, 2020)

[phavekes]

I see how this makes sense. Stepup-bundle will be included as well I presume.

Any downsides? (Pieter van der Meulen - Feb 12, 2020)

[phavekes]

I also see benefits from bundling the projects into one. There are a couple of things to consider:

• Do we keep the four different code bases intact, or will they be turned into a single application with a single Composer installment? If we can do that, then we are really yielding a lot of benefit in case of security updates. But will result in possible unused packages for some applications. For example GW does not use package x, but SelfService and RA do. See examples below:

Stepup-mono
 - config
       - Stepup-SelfService
       - Stepup-RA
 - src
      - Stepup-SelfService
      - Stepup-RA
 - test
- composer.json
- package.json

or a more separated solution

Stepup-mono
 - Stepup-SelfService
     - config
     - src
     - vendor
     - composer.json
- Stepup-RA
     - config
     - src
     - vendor
     - composer.json

• Does it make sense to use the existing Stepup-VM for this mono repo?
• Will this make running tests against the Stepup product easier? In other words, could we move the behat tests from the Stepup-deploy environement to the mono repo?

(Michiel Kodde - Feb 12, 2020)

[phavekes]

I want to make clear I'm not advocating for a monolith but for a monorepo. I don't think there will be any drawbacks compared to the current situation because I don't see the code base exponentially growing in the future (git performance) and I also don't see our team growing with 100 developers or more (more knowledge of services and their interactions etc.). So that will be the second example from Michiel. After that we could decide to have a shared library or something like that but I think that would be too early to decide now.

I don't want to get too much into detail right now to keep the discussion alive but there are tools to merge multiple repos into a single monorepo while maintaining history. Also there are tools to split a monorepo into readonly standalone repo's (this is also how Symfony works regarding it's components). (bstrooband - Feb 12, 2020)