If `COLLECTFAST_STRATEGY` is not provided in `settings`, `collectfast` has to guess a "strategy". For the case with AWS, it guesses `BotoStrategy` in stead of `S3Boto3Storage`, which is a wrong decision as we `pip install django-storages[boto3]` (`boto3` in favor of `boto`).
Setting `COLLECTFAST_STRATEGY` is also encouraged as `collectfast` is not going to guess the strategy in the future.
Ref:
* f37dd1faa2/collectfast/management/commands/collectstatic.py (L33)
* f37dd1faa2/collectfast/strategies/base.py (L170)
> 'debug': a boolean that turns on/off template debug mode. If it is
> True, the fancy error page will display a detailed report for any
> exception raised during template rendering. This report contains the
> relevant snippet of the template with the appropriate line highlighted.
> It defaults to the value of the DEBUG setting.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/templates/#module-django.template.backends.django
I could be wrong about this, but it seems like setting the template
DEBUG setting is redundant, since it should follow whatever the DEBUG
variable is set to.
## Description
Replace Caddy with Traefik
## Rationale
There is some trouble with the Caddy license (https://github.com/pydanny/cookiecutter-django/pull/1282#issuecomment-329617536)
@drdaeman suggested using Traefik (https://github.com/pydanny/cookiecutter-django/pull/1282#issuecomment-353655273) which supports ACME and also plays very nice with Docker.
## Comments
I am currently using the proposed setup on a live site and it working great so far. If this PR is of interest to the maintainers, then I could commit more changes and take care of the documentation. Of course, any suggestions by the more experienced people around here, are welcome!
* Add failing test for travis.yml
I see three options to test travis.yml :
1. Testing that the YAML contains relevant value. Least useful and least
reliable, but simplest to implement.
2. Testing that the YAML is valid TravisCI YAML. Unfortunately this is
difficult / impossible. Doing 'travis lint' would succeed, this command
does not check for 'script' key presence and wouldn't be useful for us.
We could use 'travis-build' to verify that the YAML can be converted to
a worker config, but as of now 'travis-build' doesn't work out of the
box.
There is a new tool for validating travis YAML files 'travis-yml', but
as of now it's a ruby-only library and it's still a work in progress.
3. Running Travis CI task based on the generated YAML. This seems the
best approach, however since cookiecutter-django itself uses Travis CI,
that would require running Travis CI from within Travis CI.
Scheduling Travis CI job without a github push still requires a public
github repo, which is something that we can't generate on demand.
Given that I'm opting to use approach 1.
* Adds missing config to generated .travis.yml
The keys added are as follows:
1. 'script'
Required by Travis, cookiecutter-django used to provide it until it has
been removed together with hitch.
I'm assuming hitch has been replaced with pytest, I'm setting pytest as
the new value for the 'script' key.
2. 'install'
Not required by Travis, but necessary in our case; installs test
libraries, mostly pytest.
As of now this points to 'local.txt' requirements file. There used to be
a separate 'test.txt' requirements file but it has been decided to merge
it with 'local.txt', see discussion in
https://github.com/pydanny/cookiecutter-django/pull/1557 .
* Update CONTRIBUTORS.rst
[//]: # (Thank you for helping us out: your efforts mean great deal to the project and the community as a whole!)
[//]: # (Before you proceed:)
[//]: # (1. Make sure to add yourself to `CONTRIBUTORS.rst` through this PR provided you're contributing here for the first time)
[//]: # (2. Don't forget to update the `docs/` presuming others would benefit from a concise description of whatever that you're proposing)
## Description
[//]: # (What's it you're proposing?)
Added a note around CELERY_TASK_ALWAYS_EAGER = True in docker config for local development. This causes tasks to be executed on the 'main' thread rather than by the workers. I understand why that might be desirable, but thought it worth calling out incase (like me) it makes people think something is broken.
## Rationale
[//]: # (Why does the project need that?)
Ease of use/troubleshooting
## Use case(s) / visualization(s)
[//]: # ("Better to see something once than to hear about it a thousand times.")
