feat: adding slim dockerfile

[johnson2427]

What I did

Created Dockerfile.slim for a slim version of ape without recommended-plugins

fixes: #2143

How I did it

Needed to create the whl files with python:3.11, then switch to python:3.11-slim after the whl files are created. This install ends up being 500MB in size vs 2.24GB in the current Dockerfile build.

I then install the recommended plugins in the Dockerfile for the latest version. The size of the image reduced from 2.24GB to 571MB.

How to verify it

git checkout feat/create-bare-ape-image
docker build -t ape:latest-slim -f Dockerfile.slim .
docker image ls
...
...      ...               ...   SIZE
ape   latest-slim                500MB
ape   latest                     571MB

Checklist

• All changes are completed
• New test cases have been added
• Documentation has been updated

[antazoey]

One question, with an idea for potential improvement, but otherwise LGTM

[johnson2427]

@fubuloubu make sure this works the way it did before. I checked the pip list, and for some reason this is installing eth-ape in two places, so I'm still trying to figure that out.

[fubuloubu]

Keep coming back to our github-action and wondering if there is a good way to make the recommended-plugins image work with the action to speed that up

Sorry about all the comments, didn't realize just how out of date the old dockerfile was

[johnson2427]

This is what we end up with

            "build-arg:BUILD_DATE": "2024-08-16T18:48:15Z",
            "build-arg:VCS_REF": "c3eada713fcf78b7fba8d82571298869883ffb14",
            "build-arg:VERSION": "",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.created": "2024-08-16T19:13:35.036Z",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.description": "The smart contract development tool for Pythonistas, Data Scientists, and Security Professionals",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.licenses": "Apache-2.0",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.revision": "c3eada713fcf78b7fba8d82571298869883ffb14",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.source": "https://github.com/ApeWorX/ape",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.title": "ape",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.url": "https://github.com/ApeWorX/ape",
            "label:org.opencontainers.image.version": "pr-2219"

[johnson2427]

I need to fix the documentation for the Intalling with 'docker' section, but I'm having a hard time doing so without publishing the images. I think we should update docs in a separate PR, but I'll leave that up to you two

[fubuloubu]

I need to fix the documentation for the Intalling with 'docker' section, but I'm having a hard time doing so without publishing the images. I think we should update docs in a separate PR, but I'll leave that up to you two

How do you think it will be different?

[johnson2427]

I need to fix the documentation for the Intalling with 'docker' section, but I'm having a hard time doing so without publishing the images. I think we should update docs in a separate PR, but I'll leave that up to you two

How do you think it will be different?

We are no longer going to be pushing to dockerhub from what I remember in our conversation from earlier this week. I'd like to give the ghcr location for users.

[fubuloubu]

I need to fix the documentation for the Intalling with 'docker' section, but I'm having a hard time doing so without publishing the images. I think we should update docs in a separate PR, but I'll leave that up to you two

How do you think it will be different?

We are no longer going to be pushing to dockerhub from what I remember in our conversation from earlier this week. I'd like to give the ghcr location for users.

Ah yes, for sure. I think what we can do with this PR is stop publishing to dockerhub and start publishing to ghcr, and then update the instructions before we create a release containing this update. Once merged, I will stop automated publishing on dockerhub, and we should also port some of the older images to ghcr as well to ensure continuity for any users, and then make a public announcement for that as well

[johnson2427]

Currently, from the automated metadata creation, this is where our image will go ghcr.io/apeworx/ape. I believe you want this to go to ghcr.io/apeframework/ape, correct @fubuloubu?

[fubuloubu]

Currently, from the automated metadata creation, this is where our image will go ghcr.io/apeworx/ape. I believe you want this to go to ghcr.io/apeframework/ape, correct @fubuloubu?

No! That place is good, wanted it @ ghcr.io/apeworx/ape

[fubuloubu]

If you feel confident in the workflow, it is ready to go. Would recommend just doing some local testing with a repo under your personal if you've not sure