Add Makefile

[wfleming]

This could be used almost without changes in most of our engines: just change the value of IMAGE_NAME.

[pbrisbin]

Why would I make all when make test is more intention-revealing and has the same result?

[wfleming]

This is a holdover from the one I wrote for builder, with the idea being that just typing make would build an image & also run tests to confirm goodness. You can, of course, run make test explicitly.

I'm fine with removing it & saying the default task should simply be building the image. I'll update builder as well if that's preferred, since whichever way we do it should be consistent.

Actually, I'll go ahead and remove it in both places: earlier Makefiles (app, toolbox) don't do this.

[pbrisbin]

FYI: I'm being nit-heavy here just because I can see this pattern spreading to other engines so it's worth getting right and pinning down style IMO.

[wfleming]

Nits are good! I do expect whatever we do here to become the template for other engines, so it's worth sweating the details now so we're happy with it.

[wfleming]

I'm not sure I want to keep this task name: as we work with more open source tools as "first party" engines, it'll become more likely those other projects will already have makefiles, so I think "image" might be too generic. I'm wondering if we should standardize on something more explicit that we can expect to use without issue everywhere. Maybe "codeclimate_engine"? Thoughts on this @pbrisbin?

[pbrisbin]

Hmm. It's worth questioning, but I'm not sure I share your concern:

• An existing project with an existing Makefile is unlikely to be using image, IMHO. While it is generic, I've never seen make image in the wild
• The intent of this target is (to me) not specifically to "make a codeclimate engine", but to build a docker image named IMAGE_NAME -- make image seems very apt

For those reasons, I'd be OK going with this for now. Could be worth sleeping on it though.

[wfleming]

👀 @codeclimate/review

[pbrisbin]

LGTM -- so sleek!