Make $commandWrapper / a new setting work with complex "docker run" scenarios in Makefiles

[Erik-Sovereign]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We use a Makefile with a complex "build" command, that first runs other scripts defined in the Makefile (like the equivalent of "make setup-machine") before it then runs a complex docker run command, that gets multiple ENV variables from its environment and calculated in the Makefile. We would like to mostly continue using this Makefile but use the extension with the container generated in there.

Describe the solution you'd like
The best way would be, if we could give the Make command to the extension. This command then sets up a docker, where bitbake runs. And then it runs bitbake in there.

Describe alternatives you've considered
It would be okay, if we had to create a new Make command for the extension. What seems unrealistic, is to bring all of the logic from the Makefile out of it and into a big $commandWrapper. But if you think, there could be a change for that, please englithen me and I will share more details about this "complex Makefile".

[deribaucourt]

Hello! Thanks for your detailed use case description.
It looks like your Makefile container builder is rather complex and can't be addressed as a simple one-liner.

The current commandWrapper mechanism fits most common Yocto environments (oe-init-build-env, docker, kas, ...) but we know it is more limited for Makefiles (which are more exotic). There's currently no planned support to specifically address bitbake through Makefile because each user may have too diversified scripts.

In your case, I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to write a shell script that allows calling bitbake as a one-liner. The idea would be to set up the container, then pass the arguments through docker exec:

#!/bin/bash

# Build the container (your `make setup-machine`)
docker pull crops/poky:latest
# Spawn the container in the background (you probably need to write a `make run-machine`)
docker run -d -v "$(pwd):/data" --entrypoint /bin/bash --workdir /data --name poky_crops_1 crops/poky:latest -c "while true; do sleep 10; done"
# We then forward the command to execute
docker exec -it poky_crops_1 "$@"

# Cleanup
docker stop poky_crops_1 || true
docker rm poky_crops_1 || true

Configured as:
bitbake.commandWrapper: "${workspaceFolder}/vscode-makefile-bitbake.sh"
This may be super crude, but I hope it gives you an idea. Alternatively, you can also open a VSCode remote session inside the container if you are able.

[deribaucourt]

Another idea that came to my mind: pass an arbitrary command to your Makefile run target:

ARBITRARY_COMMAND ?= echo "No command specified"

create_machine:
	docker pull crops/poky:latest

run_command: create_machine
	docker run --rm -it -v $(shell pwd):/workspace -w /workspace crops/poky /bin/bash -c '$(ARBITRARY_COMMAND)'

.PHONY: create_machine run_command

Which can define arbitrary commands like this:
ARBITRARY_COMMAND="echo This is the command" make run_command
But a wrapper script is still needed to get it from the tail of the commandline

[Erik-Sovereign]

I appreciate immensely that you haven taken the time! I will try this soon. Thank you.