I have been trying to build a Docker image by using this Dockerfile:
FROM mhart/alpine-node:base-6
MAINTAINER techhadmin
COPY ./package.json src/
RUN cd src && npm install
COPY . /src
WORKDIR /src
EXPOSE 3000
CMD ["npm", "start"]
But I receive this error:
/bin/sh: npm: not found
The command '/bin/sh -c cd src && npm install' returned a non-zero code: 127
Any idea how I can solve this?
Read the docs:
https://hub.docker.com/r/mhart/alpine-node/
Is written:
# If you need npm, don't use a base tag
# RUN npm install
So don't use base-6 tag and change FROM image to something like 7
FROM mhart/alpine-node:7
You are seeing this error message because when you tried to run npm install, there is no copy of npm available.
You are using alpine as the base image.
By default, alpine is a small image and so it has a limited set of default programs inside of it. What programs are in the alpine image? Not much.
So if you are trying to run an alpine image with Nodejs you need to do additional work.
To solve it, you have two options:
Find a different base image. - You can try to find a base image that already has Node and NPM inside of it.
Run alpine with some additional commands that attempts to install npm inside of it.
Use someone else's work or building it from scratch.
I recommend finding an image preconfigured with npm inside of it. You can navigate to DockerHub, which is a repository of images.
There is an official Node repository in DockerHub.
https://hub.docker.com/_/node
So you could do something like this:
# Specify base image
FROM node:alpine
# Install some dependencies
RUN npm install
# Setup default command
CMD ["npm", "start"]
The nice thing about node:alpine is that you will not get any additional unnecessary packages, just the absolute stripped down version of Nodejs and nothing else aside from the basics such as the ping command, cat, ls and so on.
Related
I have just started to learn Docker. I have a nodeJs web application and built 2 images of it using 2 different Dockerfile. The 2 images are really different in size. Can someone tell me why they are really different in size even though they use the same alpine, node, and npm version, and which one is the recommended way to build a nodeJS application image?
First Dockerfile which created a 91.92MB image:
FROM alpine
RUN apk add --update nodejs npm curl
COPY . /src
WORKDIR /src
RUN npm install
EXPOSE 8080
ENTRYPOINT ["node", "./app.js"]
Second Dockerfile which created a 259.57MB image:
FROM node:19-alpine3.16
RUN apk add --update npm curl
COPY . /src
WORKDIR /src
RUN npm install
CMD [ "node", "./app.js" ]
If it meets your technical and non-technical needs, using the prebuilt node image is probably simpler and easier to update, and I'd generally recomment using it.
The node image already includes npm; you do not have to apk add it. Moreover, the Dockerfile doesn't use apk to install Node, but instead installs it either from a tar file or from source. So the apk add npm call winds up installing an entire second copy of Node that you don't need; that's probably the largest difference in the two image sizes.
The base image you start from hugely affects your final image size - assuming you are adding the same stuff to each base image. In your case, you are comparing a base alpine image (5.5mb) to a base node image (174mb). The base alpine image will have very little stuff in it while the node image - while based on alpine - has at least got node in it but presumably lots of extra stuff too. Whether you do or do not need that extra stuff is not for me to say.
You can examine the Dockerfile used to build any of these public images if you wish to see exactly what was added. You can also use tools like dive to examine a local image layers.
I have my website wrapped up and wanted to containerize it for experience as I've never used Docker before. It's built on Gatsby. I did a fresh install of Docker and am running into two issues:
If I try to create an image in a Linux container, it seems to work, but I can't actually run it. I get the following error: "Error in "/app/node_modules/gatsby-transformer-sharp/gatsby-node.js": 'win32-x64' binaries cannot be used on the 'linuxmusl-x64' platform. Please remove the 'node_modules/sharp' directory and run 'npm install' on the 'linuxmusl-x64' platform."
I tried the above, uninstalling and reinstalling sharp in my project to no avail.I'm not even using sharp nor do I know what it is, though.
If I switch to Windows containers, I can't even create an image as I get the following:
"no matching manifest for windows/amd64 10.0.18363 in the manifest list entries"
My Dockerfile is as follows:
FROM node:13.12.0-alpine
# set working directory
WORKDIR /app
# add `/app/node_modules/.bin` to $PATH
ENV PATH /app/node_modules/.bin:$PATH
# install app dependencies
COPY package.json ./
COPY package-lock.json ./
RUN npm install --silent
RUN npm install react-scripts#3.4.1 -g --silent
# add app
COPY . ./
# start app
CMD ["npm", "start"]
and my .dockerignore contains
node_modules
build
Dockerfile
Dockerfile.prod
.git
Things I've tried:
This tutorial > https://mherman.org/blog/dockerizing-a-react-app/ (Where I got the Dockerfile text)
This tutorial >https://www.robinwieruch.de/docker-create-react-app-development (And its Dockerfile at one point)
Changing the FROM for node: to 14.4.0, 14, with or without -alpine.
Uninstalling and re-installing sharp
Uninstalling sharp entirely and trying to run it that way (I still get the sharp error for some reason)
Reading the documentation. Which for whatever reason only tells you how to launch a default application (such as create-react-app) or one pulled from somewhere, but not how to do so for our own website.
Thanks
I have installed Carbone on my local Linux machine using the following command and it is working properly.
npm install carbone
Now, I need to add carbone in my docker image, but I don't know how to add it to the image. Should I add the npm install command to DockerFile or add it to package.json?
I got the following error if I don't add carbone to docker image:
Code : const carbone = require('carbone');
Error: Cannot find module 'carbone'
Carbone have to be used on node projects. You can install through NPM:
npm install carbone --save
Then, you must follow the documentation of the basics:
https://github.com/Ideolys/carbone/#getting-started
If you want to dockerize your application, you can start your container from the image ideolys/carbone-env-docker. It's a ready to go node:8 image with Libreoffice installed. Example of Dockerfile:
FROM ideolys/carbone-env-docker
ENV DIR /app
WORKDIR ${DIR}
COPY . ${DIR}
RUN npm install
# index.js should call carbone functions to generate your report.
CMD [ "node", "index.js" ]
Finally you can build and run the container !
If you need more help or encounter an issue, post an issue on the Carbone Github.
Everytime I change a file in the nodejs app I have to rebuild the docker image.
This feels redundant and slows my workflow. Is there a proper way to sync the nodejs app files without rebuilding the whole image again, or is this a normal usage?
It sounds like you want to speed up the development process. In that case I would recommend to mount your directory in your container using the docker run -v option: https://docs.docker.com/engine/userguide/dockervolumes/#mount-a-host-directory-as-a-data-volume
Once you are done developing your program build the image and now start docker without the -v option.
What I ended up doing was:
1) Using volumes with the docker run command - so I could change the code without rebuilding the docker image every time.
2) I had an issue with node_modules being overwritten because a volume acts like a mount - fixed it with node's PATH traversal.
Dockerfile:
FROM node:5.2
# Create our app directories
RUN mkdir -p /usr/src/app
WORKDIR /usr/src/app
RUN npm install -g nodemon
# This will cache npm install
# And presist the node_modules
# Even after we are using the volume (overwrites)
COPY package.json /usr/src/
RUN cd /usr/src && npm install
#Expose node's port
EXPOSE 3000
# Run the app
CMD nodemon server.js
Command-line:
to build:
docker build -t web-image
to run:
docker run --rm -v $(pwd):/usr/src/app -p 3000:3000 --name web web-image
You could have also done something like change the instruction and it says look in the directory specified by the build context argument of docker build and find the package.json file and then copy that into the current working directory of the container and then RUN npm install and afterwards we will COPY over everything else like so:
# Specify base image
FROM node:alpine
WORKDIR /usr/app
# Install some dependencies
COPY ./package.json ./
RUN npm install
# Setup default command
CMD ["npm", "start"]
You can make as many changes as you want and it will not invalidate the cache for any of these steps here.
The only time that npm install will be executed again is if we make a change to that step or any step above it.
So unless you make a change to the package.json file, the npm install will not be executed again.
So we can test this by running the docker build -t <tagname>/<project-name> .
Now I have made a change to the Dockerfile so you will see some steps re run and eventually our successfully tagged and built image.
Docker detected the change to the step and every step after it, but not the npm install step.
The lesson here is that yes it does make a difference the order in which all these instructions are placed in a Dockerfile.
Its nice to segment out these operations to ensure you are only copying the bare minimum.
Kind of a longshot, but has anyone had any problems using bcrypt in a linux container (specifically docker) and know of an automated workaround? I have the same issue as these two:
Invalid ELF header with node bcrypt on AWSBox
bcrypt invalid elf header when running node app
My Dockerfile
# Pull base image
FROM node:0.12
# Expose port 8080
EXPOSE 8080
# Add current directory into path /data in image
ADD . /data
# Set working directory to /data
WORKDIR /data
# Install dependencies from package.json
RUN npm install --production
# Run index.js
CMD ["npm", "start"]
I get the previously mentioned invalid ELF header error if I have bcrypt already installed in my node_modules, but if I remove it (either just itself or all my packages), it isn't installed for some reason when I build the container. I have to manually enter the container after the build and install it inside.
Is there an automated workaround?
Or maybe, just, what would be a good alternative to bcrypt with a Node stack?
Liam's comment is on the money, just expanding on it for future travellers on the internets.
The issue is that you've copied your node_modules folder into your container. The reason that this is a problem is that bcrypt is a native module. It's not just javascript, but also a bunch of C code that gets compiled at the time of installation.
The binaries that come out of that compilation get stored in the node_modules folder and they're customised to the place they were built. Transplanting them out of their OSX home into a strange Linux land causes them to misbehave and complain about ELF headers and fairy feet.
The solution is to echo node_modules >> .dockerignore and run npm install as part of your Dockerfile. This means that the native modules will be compiled inside the container rather than outside it on your laptop.
With this in place, there is no need to run npm install before your start CMD. Just having it in the build phase of the Dockerfile is fine.
protip: the official node images set NODE_ENV=production by default, which npm treats the same as the --production flag. Most of the time this is a good thing. It is not a good thing when your Dockerfile also contains some build steps that rely on dev dependencies (webpack, etc). In that case you want NODE_ENV=null npm install
pro protip: you can take better advantage of Docker's caching by copying in your package.json separately to the rest of your code. Make your Dockerfile look like this:
# Pull base image
FROM node:0.12
# Expose port 8080
EXPOSE 8080
# Set working directory to /data
WORKDIR /data
# Set working directory to /data
COPY package.json /data
# Install dependencies from package.json
RUN npm install
# Add current directory into path /data in image
ADD . /data
# Run index.js
CMD npm start
And that way Docker will only re-run npm install when you change your package.json, not every time you change a line of code.
Okay, so I have a working automated workaround:
Call npm install --production in the CMD instruction. I'm going to wave my hands at figuring out why I have to install bcrypt at the time of executing the container, but it works.
Updated Dockerfile
# Pull base image
FROM node:0.12
# Expose port 8080
EXPOSE 8080
# Add current directory into path /data in image
ADD . /data
# Set working directory to /data
WORKDIR /data
# Install dependencies from package.json
RUN npm install --production
# Run index.js
CMD npm install --production; npm start
Add this command before RUN npm install in your Dockerfile
RUN apk --no-cache add --virtual builds-deps build-base python3
It worked for me. Maybe it will work for you :)