Compose: env_file interpolating vars from .env and shell the same as environment does

Created on 11 Sep 2016  ·  3Comments  ·  Source: docker/compose

I have some config vars defined in ".env" file.
So, if I can use them like this in my compose yml file:

  environment:
   - VAR=${VAL_FROM_ENV}
  env_file:
    - etc/environment.yml

Why I cannot use this in my environment.yml?

DEMO_VAR='${VAL_FROM_ENV}'

I see env_file as extension of environment field in a file, and it makes perfect sense also to adhere the override from shell vars.

It makes sense to me that .env file is for Compose and environment/env_file for docker-containers.
It also makes perfect sense to me that terminal env vars override the ones in .env.

I think it is pretty cool that I can have many env.yml files or just one and reuse it. Making it work the same a enviroment field vars would make whole compose thing drastically more dynamic and interconnected (and you are not passing everything everywhere). And I wouldn't have to retype everything on many different places.

Background - I am orchestrating development environment on mac with docker machine / compose (previously with vagrant) and have been looking for a way to keep all important settings per app in one file (where app runs on some stack defined in compose file), which IMHO makes life easier dealing with many projects/devs. Also, I really don't like hardcoding sensitive data in different config files.

I have been following discussion on #3435 (Interpolate Variables set by environment or env_file) and although I want that badly, I don't think that compose yml file is good place to define vars to be used elsewhere (in compose/docker filees?) because that would lead to completely unreadable mix of vars (who is setting or reading from where?).

Thank you. :)

docker-compose version
docker-compose version 1.8.0, build unknown
docker-py version: 1.9.0
CPython version: 2.7.10
OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 0.9.8zh 14 Jan 2016

stale

Most helpful comment

Really inconsistent implementation without having this part working.

All 3 comments

Really inconsistent implementation without having this part working.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

This issue has been automatically closed because it had not recent activity during the stale period.

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings

Related issues

DhairyashilBhosale picture DhairyashilBhosale  ·  3Comments

saulshanabrook picture saulshanabrook  ·  3Comments

davidbarratt picture davidbarratt  ·  3Comments

dimsav picture dimsav  ·  3Comments

bitver picture bitver  ·  3Comments