feat: target platform e2e

[jkomyno]

Contributes to prisma/prisma#14017, #3332, prisma/prisma#16962, prisma/docs#4303

This PR adds Dockerised OS Support tests for in the ./docker folder. In particular, it tries to run Prisma Client (both binary and library) in the following systems:

• alpine-3.16-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• alpine-3.17-amd64-openssl-3.0.x
• alpine-latest-amd64-openssl-3.0.x
• debian-bullseye-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• debian-buster-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• debian-latest-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• opensuse-tumbleweed-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• ubuntu-20.04-amd64-openssl-1.1.x
• ubuntu-22.04-amd64-openssl-3.0.x
• ubuntu-latest-amd64-openssl-3.0.x
• ubuntu-latest-arm64-openssl-3.0.x

Additionally, for each Dockerised system, we assert the binaryTarget selected by Prisma (i.e., the Current platform value in prisma -v). If a major Docker image suddenly introduces a new OpenSSL version we don't support, or switches to another architecture by default, we will receive a Slack notification.

Multiarchitecture support (amd64, arm64) works via QEMU (docker/setup-qemu-action@v2) and Docker Buildx (docker/setup-buildx-action@v2).

Review Helpers

• Relevant scripts only: File filter > Filter by extension > Check .yaml, .sh
• Dockerfiles only: File filter > Filter by extension > Check No extension
• Markdowns only: File filter > Filter by extension > Check .md
• All relevant changes: File filter > Filer by extension > Check .md, .yaml, .sh, No extension

TODOs

From these tests, I have opened the following issues:

• https://github.com/prisma/prisma-private/issues/205

We should:

• Solve the issues above
• Add debian-latest-arm64-openssl-1.1.x to the Docker test pipeline once https://github.com/prisma/prisma-private/issues/205 is solved.
• Run docker workflow only once per day
• Add failure expectation for the following systems:
  • _fail-debian-buster-amd64-openssl-1.1.x

[jkomyno]

Add multiarchitecture support (amd64, arm64)

[Jolg42]

We could also have it before we fix it? (it would fail, but we'll instantly know once it's fixed)

[jkomyno]

We could, but I'd be wary of merging something that results in a red CI status

[jkomyno]

Note: change base to dev

[Jolg42]

Suggested change

	RUN ldconfig -p | grep ssl
	RUN ldconfig -p | grep ssl | sed "s/.*=>\s*//"

Missing or intentional?

[Jolg42]

We discussed that this could use the most recent LTS version and that we could have a test for the latest version too

[Jolg42]

Easy way would be to replace with https://github.com/nodesource/distributions

Node.js LTS (v18.x):
Using Ubuntu

curl -fsSL https://deb.nodesource.com/setup_lts.x | sudo -E bash - &&\
sudo apt-get install -y nodejs

Using Debian, as root

curl -fsSL https://deb.nodesource.com/setup_lts.x | bash - &&\
apt-get install -y nodejs

Node.js Current (v19.x):
Using Ubuntu

curl -fsSL https://deb.nodesource.com/setup_current.x | sudo -E bash - &&\
sudo apt-get install -y nodejs

Using Debian, as root

curl -fsSL https://deb.nodesource.com/setup_current.x | bash - &&\
apt-get install -y nodejs

[Jolg42]

Looks good!
I checked the logs and everything seems to work like expected there 💯

We discussed we don't want to merge this PR because it's based on latest branch and we want to merge to dev.

[jkomyno]

Closing this in favor of #3341.