-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 437
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
@4 version broken by a patch release #4193
Comments
|
|
I'm also having issues when running a Function App from a docker container. In my case, I have a docker-compose.yml file that I was using in Visual Studio until recently without issues. Recently, when launching from Visual Studio Pro v17.12.0 (which I believe uses the latest version of this tool), the container logs this instead of normal startup/application logs:
This is happening to all our Function App projects and only in Visual Studio. This does not occur when running Update: I was able to fix this issue by moving the setting "FUNCTIONS_WORKER_RUNTIME" from our |
Azure Functions Core Tools are designed for local development and testing of function apps on your computer. The Docker images published by the Functions team already include the Function runtime, which executes your function app when the container is started. Could you share more about your use case? What’s the specific reason you need Core Tools inside the container? |
I don't need Core Tools and am not adding it to the container. Here's my dockerfile:
The issue was that previously, we were defining Here's how to recreate:
This used to work but if you try and check the Function App container logs you will see:
And your function app will not be executed. |
@Zemfm I followed your repro steps, and I am able to run the app without any issues. The only additional thing I had to do was the port mapping for the azure function app from the container to the host. I uploaded my working app to this repo with instructions on how to run it locally. You can see that my repro app does not have a Can you compare this with your local repro and see what is different? If you are still running into the issue, can you share a minimal repro (similar to how I shared the working repro)? Thanks! |
I have exactly the same problem. I dont use docker, my test starts the function app. The test has been successfully starting Function app fine until now and with the new functions runtime, it no longer works. It now needs local.settings.json in the functions folder and for it to contain |
Hi @kshyju , I have the exact same repository as you and I still have the issue. Did you run this from Visual Studio's latest version? As I said, I have no issues when running |
I may have found the cause for this issue. In this PR #4142 , the added method EnsureWorkerRuntimeIsSet() only checks |
/bot not-stale |
As specified in the README on my working repo, I used a command line/terminal window to run the docker commands. Haven't tried with VS. |
But you are not running Azure Functions Tools when you only run docker commands with that simple docker-compose. However, when running from Visual Studio, other compose files are added that execute this tool. When I read #3544 , it seems that providing Which is why I created #4198 to look for the environment variable Maybe a simpler way to replicate is:
|
Just as a final information and because I was sure this used to be a feature, I checked out a4bf0e4 (v4.0.6543) and was able to run the function using the steps in my previous comment (with When I tried to run that version of the tool without the env variable, instead of the wizard, this warning was shown in the output: |
Version
Hi Team,
After upgrading our software to version 4.0.6594, we encountered severe issues where the application failed to start entirely. Despite extensive debugging efforts, we were unable to resolve the issue, and the only viable solution was to revert and pin the version back to 4.0.6280.
Given the significant impact and breaking changes introduced, we’re left wondering why this was released as a patch release, which typically implies non-breaking, backward-compatible changes. Could you provide insight into the reasoning behind this release versioning, and are there any known issues or changes in 4.0.6594 that could explain this behavior?
We appreciate any guidance or information you can offer to help us understand and address this problem.
Thank you.
Description
After upgrading our software to version 4.0.6594, we encountered severe issues where the application failed to start entirely. Despite extensive debugging efforts, we were unable to resolve the issue, and the only viable solution was to revert and pin the version back to 4.0.6280.
Steps to reproduce
Change version to 4.0.6594
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: