Check the
documentation
Ask the
Community
Take a look
at
Academy
Cognite
Status
Page
Contact
Cognite Support
Hi Everyone,
We're currently managing multiple CDF Toolkit solutions in a mono-repo and evaluating whether to maintain this approach or migrate to a multi-repo structure. We'd love to learn from teams who've navigated through this decision.
Current Setup (Mono-repo):
1. Single repository housing multiple solutions with shared infrastructure.
2. Shared auth-governance across all solutions.
3. Teams need independence but also need to prevent cross-team overwrites.
We're Looking For:
1. Real-world examples: How did you decide between mono/multi-repo? What factors mattered most?
2. Tooling patterns: How do you handle shared resources (auth governance) in multi-repo? How do you manage CDF Toolkit versioning across repos?
3. At how many solutions/teams did you reach the limit of mono-repo and decide to switch to multi-repo?
4. How do teams with multi-repos handle toolkit version synchronization? Do you enforce a minimum/maximum version across repos?
5. Documentation (runbooks or migration guidelines)
We'd love feedback from:
CC:
Any experiences or documentation would be valuable.
Thank you,
David Shaji George
Monorepo vs Multi-Repo Architecture - Seeking Community Insights on CDF Toolkit Management
+2Best answer by Markus Pettersen
As mentioned, we currently use a multi-repo structure but have decided to move to a mono-repo approach as part of our transition from ADO to GitHub for our CDF Toolkit repositories.
We are still in the early stages of implementation, so it’s too soon to share concrete experiences with the mono-repo setup.
One of the main challenges with our multi-repo setup has been governance, particularly around access management and admin settings in CDF (such as location filters). This is something we plan to centralize regardless, as allowing access configuration from any repo poses a security risk.
We are also moving away from CDF classic datasets toward data modeling. Our current design, which assumes one repo per dataset, is already outdated and needs to be revised. With data modeling and the introduction of data products/domains, our approach to using the Toolkit will need to evolve anyway. For now, we’ve chosen a mono-repo structure, but whether this is the right decision, and how it works once developers start using it, is still too early to tell.
hi
Even though we in the Toolkit team do not have an opinion on this at this stage, my hunch based on the customers I have seen, and the AkerBP decision is that mono repo is the way to go. It is seems simply easier to govern from one location, rather than have it scattered across multiple repos.
As mentioned, we currently use a multi-repo structure but have decided to move to a mono-repo approach as part of our transition from ADO to GitHub for our CDF Toolkit repositories.
We are still in the early stages of implementation, so it’s too soon to share concrete experiences with the mono-repo setup.
One of the main challenges with our multi-repo setup has been governance, particularly around access management and admin settings in CDF (such as location filters). This is something we plan to centralize regardless, as allowing access configuration from any repo poses a security risk.
We are also moving away from CDF classic datasets toward data modeling. Our current design, which assumes one repo per dataset, is already outdated and needs to be revised. With data modeling and the introduction of data products/domains, our approach to using the Toolkit will need to evolve anyway. For now, we’ve chosen a mono-repo structure, but whether this is the right decision, and how it works once developers start using it, is still too early to tell.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.