Hacker News Reader

I think the main issue with using programming languages to run your CI/CD is that the whole point of CI/CD is to test and verify that your code works. Now you have code that may or may not be buggy, running your CI/CD so you'll have to set up CI/CD to test your test running code, ad nauseum.

People might hate constrained configuration, but the idea is that you dont have to prove that what you're configuring is actually whats happening.

View on HN

> Now you have code that may or may not be buggy

Doesn't your solution of replacing the possibly buggy code with configuration leave you with configuration that may or may not be buggy?

Its mainly a question of it being deterministic and reproducible I think. The presumption is that you then go and test a bunch of stuff based on whatever was built, so no, it will not be buggy.

But if the code that actually goes to production is actually different to what is tested (because your rebuilt it based on a config with some runtime behavior that executed differently), you are compromising the whole thing and all bets are off.

People will try to split the difference and generate a static config with code and test that as a reproducible entity, but then you have another set of tradeoffs (not least, complexity).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com