@choldgraf, thanks a lot for these instructions, they work like a charm!
I have a question though: does the syntax allow to pull into a jupyter-lab, and at a specific notebook location? I’ve been playing around with the urls bellow, but without success:
@fmaussion I’ve found you need to bring escaping into play so that different arguments are correctly associated with different parts of the URL when it comes to be parsed.
I’d be -1 on adding nbgitpuller to repo2docker because it is niche.
I understand, but my first impression after moving from a single repository to a content + environment repository is quite good. And the use case I’ve explained in the link above is a highlight for me! Basically, instructors can now just focus on the content and write content based on the model, while not having to fight with mybinder configurations at all. Let’s see how it goes with time, but I’m quite excited about this mybinder+nbgitpuller configuration
Interesting thanks… what does the autodecode suffix do?
I think there is structure in the URLs with the urlpath mode relating to the repo name and other path elements, but I need to check a couple more examples with a clear head to check I have the structure right…
On my to do list is explore adding a link generating tab to the nbgitpuller link generator, but it won’t be for at least a week now… Isle of Festival mode for me for a few days. now…
This is so delightful! I love the idea of having a reference binder (say for a team/lab) and everyone can point their repos to it. Can there be an endpoint that launches RStudio server instead of Jupyter? Pretty please?
I think that’s what folks above were trying out (maybe with limited success?). I think this would be good to support though, if we can figure out what’s preventing it from working
I generally try to test various combinations of running Jupyter notebooks/lab (arbitrary kernels), RStudio (R, shiny), and OpenRefine (java) along with Postgres (as headless service). I stalled trying to use Binderhub to just launch either RStudio or just OpenRefine, decided to leave it for a week or two to see if inspiration about how to get it working came to mind, and haven’t had a chance to get back to it (albeit without any inspiration!)
Because why wouldn’t you use a docker image with so many tools pre-installed that it is a miracle it works as your general purpose environment to run notebooks?
How can I use this?
To use it add the link to the Git repository that contains your notebook to the end of this URL:
This is really cool! Has anyone managed to get nbgitpuller links working from within a running binder rather than built into the initial launch? For example in a tutorial setting, everyone launches the base binder and then pastes in links to several different repos without needing to know any git.
This approach definitely works from a dedicated jupyterhub (https://jupyterhub.github.io/nbgitpuller/link.html), but I’m seeing 403: Forbidden errors if I try to open links from within a binder session.
Could you make an example link @scottyhq? And explain again what you would like to do, I am not sure I get it .
You start a new binder, then do some stuff in it, then the instructor says “now we need the content of repo X” and gives everyone a link to click that triggers a nbgitpuller actionn in the binder instance I am already running?
You start a new binder, then do some stuff in it, then the instructor says “now we need the content of repo X” and gives everyone a link to click that triggers a nbgitpuller actionn in the binder instance I am already running?
Exactly!
As a concrete example, we start @fmaussion’s really great tutorial : Binder
We work for a while and then want to try bringing in a new repo (w/o dealing with git and assuming we have all the required packages - GitHub - ICESAT-2HackWeek/data-access).
@choldgraf
I really like this idea. As it currently works, it has an unexpected characteristic that I discovered while playing with the concept on an internal version. We have found it very convenient to be able to use git in jupyter to enable round-trip development by committing changes in the jupyter notebook/lab environment and pushing them back to the remote repo.
As you have this implemented today, the remote is the repo of the environment rather than the repo with the content. I did not expect this. I think that a user would always want any changes to be pushed upstream to the content repo, not the environment repo.
You can see this easily by cat .git/config from a Terminal window. Changes would be pushed to choldgraf/binder-sandbox instead of the probably more desirable data/materials-fa17. Yes, you would not expect somebody who did not have ownership rights to the content repo to try to push anything back, but if you owned it, or someone forked it, I think the remote content repo is the more desirable target.
.