-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[DONE] run development server on port 8000 #1125
Conversation
Bonjour, cela ne semble pas poser de problème. Je vois avec la personne qui a mis en place les docker s'il y avait une raison particulière pour du mapping 9090:8080 et je reviens vers vous rapidement (d'ici cette fin de semaine) |
Bonjour, après avoir fait le tour des contributeurs, pas de soucis pour nous pour aligner les ports. Le port par défaut de django est le 8000. On pourrait aligner sur ce dernier si cela vous va ? Sinon ok pour mettre 9090. |
Oui pas de souci. Je vais mettre à jour la PR pour utiliser le port 8000 dans ce cas. |
Merci ! |
Instead of running the dev server on port 8080 inside docker and expose it externally on port 9090.
Et voilà ! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok pour moi
For the sake of simplicity I suggest to run the development server on port 9090 instead of 8080 inside docker containers, to align this with the exposed port. Unless this is motivated by technical reasons I ignore?
I found by working on #1058 that this is sometimes confusing to deal with different ports depending on the context. Communications among docker containers had to use the port 8080 (for instance communication between a peertube and a pod instance) whether pod had to be externally reached with the 9090 port (with my browser).
The initial data for
Site
use the 9090 port.Esup-Pod/pod/main/fixtures/initial_data.json
Lines 2 to 8 in be94744
For the AP implementation we rely on
Site
to build absolute URLs. That would lead to funky situations with the peertube federation for instance, when a pod AP endpoint accessed by the 8080 port would expose a 9090 URL.I put this changes on a separate PR than the incoming one for the AP implementation to make it easier to review. If you accept this PR I intend to submit another one that would uniformise the docker host names in the same way.
What do you think?
develop
branch.[WIP]
or[DONE]
.