Feature Request: ability to put comments in Procfiles

[ddollar]

Feature Request: ability to put comments in Procfiles

[ddollar]

For now I'd like to leave the Procfile as simple as possible to be easily parseable. Thanks for the feedback!

[t0d0r]

I need this ability too :), will be very usefull for documenting things for the project.

diff --git a/lib/foreman/engine.rb b/lib/foreman/engine.rb
index b624986..21df7d9 100644
--- a/lib/foreman/engine.rb
+++ b/lib/foreman/engine.rb
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ class Foreman::Engine
     @processes ||= begin
       @order = []
       procfile.split("\n").inject({}) do |hash, line|
+        next hash if line =~ /^#/
         next hash if line.strip == ""
         name, command = line.split(/\s*:\s+/, 2)
         unless command

[denmarkin]

I also need an ability to quickly enable/disable some things in development env. + 1 to t0d0r

[pguillory]

Same. This would be super handy.

[alan]

I'd like this too.

There is a problem with resque where we have to modify the normal startup of the worker. It would be great to document this change with a link to the existing resque problem.

[christianl]

Agree, this would be extremely useful. "as simple as possible but no simpler". Cheers

[lenary]

as a counterpoint - for development i have a Procfile.dev which runs extra tasks like compiling coffeescript (not a rails app) and running the app with shotgun not rackup. Could you try that instead? the -f option on foreman allows you to specify a different Procfile...

[ddollar]

The pattern I like to use for these cases is bin/ scripts:

$ cat Procfile
web: bin/web

$ cat bin/web
#!/bin/sh
if [ "$RACK_ENV" == "development" ]; then
  shotgun start -p $PORT
else
  thin start -p $PORT
fi

This keeps the Procfile simple, and should always allow you to start your app using bin/web

[lenary]

ah, that makes sense too, if it weren't for the extra tasks

[ddollar]

For what it's worth, the Procfile parser now only tries to parse lines that match a certain regex, so comments will likely work.

[odigity]

+1 for comments

[stationkeeping]

+1

[mariusbutuc]

+1 for comments

[WattsInABox]

👍

[gueyeb]

+1 for comments too.

[odigity]

This is trivial to implement. In fact, I think that someone demonstrated a one-line change that would do the simplest version of it above. I'd submit a PR myself, but will it be accepted?

A file without comments like is a car without doors. Sure, you can get in through the window, Dukes-of-Hazard-style, but... why?

[WattsInABox]

I thought the same thing. I'd be happy to implement it you, @odigity, can't. And with approval from the makers.

[macool]

+1 for comments

[dideler]

I'm also in favour of this issue being reopened. The suggested workaround doesn't allow you to make a general comment about the Procfile, since the comments would go in the specific shell scripts.

[joshnroy]

I'm in favor of reopening this as well. Commenting in the procfile during development would allow users to easily test different configurations during development.

[cjroebuck]

+1 I just want to turn things on and off for dev, but not have to delete the whole line and copy it somewhere else!

[Matt--]

+1 for comments

[ericraio]

+1 for comments

[beornborn]

+1 for comments

[marksterxxx]

+1 for comments

[adis-io]

+1 for comments

[reconstructions]

+1 for comments

[diziet]

+1, especially as we want to have a Profile.example that folks can use easily

[ddollar]

Foreman has used a matching filter on the Procfile to only parse lines that look like process entries for a few years now. Are you still running into problems with this?

[diziet]

@ddollar You're correct -- appending # to the beginning of line at the Procfile effectively makes it function like a comment. Sorry for bringing up a nonexistent issue.

[WattsInABox]

I swear I tried it at some point and it didn't work, but it's totally working now. Thanks, guys.

[jwfearn]

Using foreman 0.82.0 on OS X 10.11.5 and Ruby 2.1.2 I found that lines starting with # ARE processed, whereas lines starting with // are ignored. For example this Procfile:

# foo: cd foo && bundle exec rails s -p 3000
// bar: cd bar && bundle exec rails s -p 3001
baz: cd baz && bundle exec rails s -p 3002

starts two processes: foo and baz

Would it be possible to add true comments rather than a parser-matching-filter to recognize lines that look like process entries?

If so, please also update docs to indicate how comments work (e.g., comment string: #, //, or other?, whole lines only?, end of line only?, multi-line? __END__? etc.)

[mitchellporter]

+1 for comments

[benzittlau]

+1 for comments

[RawStewage]

+1 for comments

[jpwynn]

It's a file.

+1 for DOCUMENTING the format for a comment...