feat: provider requirement handling

[Philip-21]

Description

Requirement checks are added for providers before daytona starts, also a continuation of #1222

This PR addresses issue #673

Related Issue(s)

This PR addresses issue #673

BREAKING CHANGES

Before running the Server again, all providers will need to be removed by running the following command:

Linux:

rm -rf ~/.config/daytona/providers/*-provider/*-provider

Mac:

rm -rf ~/Library/Application\ Support/daytona/providers/*-provider/*-provider

Windows (PowerShell):

Remove-Item -Recurse -Force "C:\Users\<USERNAME>\AppData\Roaming\daytona\providers\*-provider\*-provider.exe"

After updating and starting the server. You can reinstall your providers with daytona provider install

[Philip-21]

@Tpuljak please have a look, i have been able to implement them in the rpc, and client setups, but i havent yet implemeted it in the main cli yet, i was having come nil pointer error when i tried testing it out locally , so i think its best the setups get merged then i can perform the calls to the checkrequirement() before daytona runs,

i have also pushed a pr in the docker provider

this is what i am referring to in the server.go , i will add this to handle the requirement checks

               infoColor := color.New(color.FgHiBlue).SprintFunc()
		warningColor := color.New(color.FgRed).SprintFunc()
		p := RequirementProvider{}

		requirements, err := p.Provider.CheckRequirements()
		if err != nil {
			return err
		}
		if requirements == nil {

		}

		for _, req := range *requirements {

			if req.Met {
				allRequirementsMet = true
				fmt.Printf("%s[0000]     Requirement met: %s\n", infoColor("INFO"), req.Reason)
			} else {
				allRequirementsMet = false
				fmt.Printf("%s[0000]  Requirement not met: %s\n", warningColor("WARNING"), req.Reason)
			}
			if !allRequirementsMet {
				return fmt.Errorf("    Daytona server startup aborted, one or more requirement not met")
			}
		}

[Tpuljak]

@Philip-21 nice work. It seems to be going in the right direction.

this is what i am referring to in the server.go , i will add this to handle the requirement checks

This should also be added in this PR. We will release Daytona and the Providers on the same day so both should be in sync.

fmt.Printf("%s[0000]

Also, instead of this, use log.Info and log.Warn.

P.S. You will need to raise a PR in all our available providers for this to go through.

[Philip-21]

@Philip-21 nice work. It seems to be going in the right direction.

Thank you

[Philip-21]

P.S. You will need to raise a PR in all our available providers for this to go through.

Alright, i will add for the other providers to, i have to just look into them and study their sdk abit, since these other providers are cloud based .

[Philip-21]

This should also be added in this PR. We will release Daytona and the Providers on the same day so both should be in sync.

fmt.Printf("%s[0000]

Also, instead of this, use log.Info and log.Warn.

Alright this is fine,

[Philip-21]

so @Tpuljak it means we have to implement for all other providers, if not i can't perform the call to the checkrequirement() properly before daytona runs, now we have only the requiremnent for docker it wouldnt work, we have to implement for AWS, digital ocean and fly , because i tried it calling the checkrequirement() locally and i had nil pointer panic errors. It only worked when i hard-coded it in the first commits i pushed to the closed pr #1222 , and that doesn't follow our architectural procedure.

[Tpuljak]

so @Tpuljak it means we have to implement for all other providers, if not i can't perform the call to the checkrequirement() properly before daytona runs, now we have only the requiremnent for docker it wouldnt work, we have to implement for AWS, digital ocean and fly , because i tried it calling the checkrequirement() locally and i had nil pointer panic errors. It only worked when i hard-coded it in the first commits i pushed to the closed pr #1222 , and that doesn't follow our architectural procedure.

Yes, you will have to implement the method in all other providers to satisfy the interface.

[Philip-21]

so @Tpuljak it means we have to implement for all other providers, if not i can't perform the call to the checkrequirement() properly before daytona runs, now we have only the requiremnent for docker it wouldnt work, we have to implement for AWS, digital ocean and fly , because i tried it calling the checkrequirement() locally and i had nil pointer panic errors. It only worked when i hard-coded it in the first commits i pushed to the closed pr #1222 , and that doesn't follow our architectural procedure.

Yes, you will have to implement the method in all other providers to satisfy the interface.

They have all been implemented and referenced here

[Philip-21]

So it should be performed in the registerProviders() directly

[Tpuljak]

So it should be performed in the registerProviders() directly

Yes

[Philip-21]

@Tpuljak I have made changes

[Tpuljak]

@Philip-21 code looks good. Nice work!

Since this requires all our providers to be updated as well, we won't merge this today. Instead, we can approve and merge after our release on Tuesday and queue this for Friday's release.

[Philip-21]

Alright thanks alot @Tpuljak for putting me through.
I'm beginning to understand the architecture bit by bit

[Tpuljak]

Alright thanks alot @Tpuljak for putting me through. I beginning to understand the architecture bit by bit

No problem. Glad to see that!

[Tpuljak]

@Philip-21 can you please link all provider PRs in a single comment. Additionally, since we released the GCP and Hetzner providers in the meantime, they should also have a PR for this.

[Philip-21]

@Philip-21 can you please link all provider PRs in a single comment. Additionally, since we released the GCP and Hetzner providers in the meantime, they should also have a PR for this.

Alright I am on it . I would implement the new providers and link everything here

[Philip-21]

@Tpuljak these are the Pr's for handling requirement checks for all Daytona providers

Docker
GCP
AWS
Azure
Digital Ocean
FLY
Hetzner

[Tpuljak]

Nice work! Apologies for the long wait for approval. We'll get this merged and released today. Thanks!

[Tpuljak]

@Philip-21 please address these 2 comments before we give final approval.

[Philip-21]

@Philip-21 please address these 2 comments before we give final approval.

Nice work! Apologies for the long wait for approval. We'll get this merged and released today. Thanks!

No problem, i have attended to the changes requested

[Tpuljak]

Nice work!