[Feature Request] support geth docker image

[yxliang01]

I think it would be cool if this package does not only support interfacing with geth as a subprocess, but also geth running in a docker container using the official geth image!

Thanks

Cute Animal Picture

From https://github.com/jaseg/lolcat

[0x0elliot]

Hey! I can help out with this issue if i get a simple green flag. Let me take this up? :)

[pacrob]

Thanks, @0x0elliot , we'd appreciate the help. Consider yourself green-flagged.

[0x0elliot]

Alright, Let me revisit this issue this weekend :)

A head's up on where to look and what files to edit would be really cool meanwhile. I will figure this out anyways when I come back to it.

[0x0elliot]

@pacrob ^

[0x0elliot]

interesting. the source code seems heavily dependent on directories and commands being present. so to add docker support, the easiest way to go is to add a docker=true flag with a bunch of appropriate volumes (if necessary) to make sure that those files are always there and thus, everything works.

the first step seems like converting every command to a docker exec command which uses the docker geth binary to do the necessary.

would make my first draft. might be a bit buggy, hoping for eventual completeness with time :)

i would also take this feature very slowly, hopefully with the help of one of the maintainers!
here is how this integration would go:

• Add Install support (build + download)
• Add start support
• Add stop support
• Rest of the commands.. (slow and steady, towards a stable feature set)

[0x0elliot]

#180 to keep track of changes

[0x0elliot]

would appreciate continuous feedback on this PR @pacrob :)

this is going to be a long one. i also don't want to wait too long before our first merge. any strategy? my idea is to slowly add docker support with each PR for a certain set of features. a milestone based suggestion from you would help out a bunch :)

[0x0elliot]

this PR for ready for basic feedback now! i will continue post a basic review next weekend.

[pacrob]

Hey @0x0elliot , thanks for getting this going. I'm going through the PR now. My first thought is indeed "wow, this is going to be bigger than I thought", but I don't have any better ideas at the moment. I'll think on it and get back to you.

It'll need to stay a feature branch as long as any tests aren't passing, but as long as it's regularly rebased that shouldn't be a huge problem.

[0x0elliot]

it's weekend again. getting to the rest of the features today. one quick thing though @pacrob

i don't think it's good to let it stay in the feature branch for too long after all tests are passing. better to release unstable broken things to the community so we have a bunch of feedback to work off of than to procrastinate on release.