Docker extension

[lazaa32]

Overview

Docker extension for pywps-flask.
Updated readme.
Added parameters to config file.
Added requests for tests.
Updated isolation Dockerfile.

Related Issue / Discussion

Additional Information

Contribution Agreement

(as per https://github.com/geopython/pywps/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst#contributions-and-licensing)

• I'd like to contribute [feature X|bugfix Y|docs|something else] to PyWPS. I confirm that my contributions to PyWPS will be compatible with the PyWPS license guidelines at the time of contribution.
• I have already previously agreed to the PyWPS Contributions and Licensing Guidelines

[jorgejesus]

I have tested and tried to understand as maximum as I could, as far as could understand and IMHO. I have some comments concerning this PR

• We should keep pywps-flask connected only to pywps master or tag branch, and not to and not to an branch that has different code. (This could be a problem when working and testing on branch)

• There is a pull request on pywps Docker extension pywps#443 that first should be accepted and then specifically look at this PR and later look at pywps-flask

• PR #443 on pywps will require a dock image to run the processes, think this will be better on the master of pywps

• This pull request is properly done and has specific unnitests, I have set the configuration file to mode=docker but got to many connection error: https://pastebin.com/sWZgKRGP it seems that the requests shoulf be async (for what I understood from other docs)

My recommendations:

• Wait until docker support is added to pywps
• After present a PR for the pywps-flask using 4.2 or 4.4

My IMHO:

• This is a very important work, and it has to be merged ASAP
• Code is well structured and with specific unnitests (good work)

@lazaa32 Care to comment in case I am missing something or not having a clear idea of what is going on
@jachym I leave the final decision on how to proceed up to you.

[lazaa32]

* We should keep `pywps-flask` connected only to  `pywps` master or tag branch, and not to and not to an branch that has different code. (This could be a problem when working and testing on branch)

* There is a pull request on pywps [geopython/pywps#443](https://github.com/geopython/pywps/pull/443) that first should be accepted and then specifically look at this PR and later look at  `pywps-flask`

I agree with you. I made both PRs to let you know that work both on pywps-flask and pywps is ready to test. Once geopython/pywps#443 is merged into master, there is no need for any other branch.

* PR #443 on pywps will require a dock image to run the processes, think this will be better on the master of pywps

* This pull request is properly done and has specific unnitests, I have set the configuration file to `mode=docker` but got to many connection error: https://pastebin.com/sWZgKRGP it seems that the requests shoulf be async (for what I understood from other docs)

Could you check whether a container is at least created and started after submitting a request, please?

My recommendations:

* Wait until docker support is added to pywps

* After present a PR for the pywps-flask using 4.2 or 4.4

+1

My IMHO:

* This is a very important work, and it has to be merged ASAP

It would be nice to get this merged by mid January. Right now I have a good wifi connection but later I can't promise I will have a chance to work on this constantly due to lack of electric power and wifi :(.

[jorgejesus]

During my initial tests the docker containers where created. I will make a more extensive check to determine why they are not connecting