Skip to content
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

Remove container_names from docker-compose.yml #78

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 9, 2022

Conversation

topelrapha
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

In environments with multiple instances on one server there are nameconflicts by setting container names in docker-compose.yml. Is there any reason why they are hardcoded?
If not it would be great to remove the container_names from docker-compose.yml by accepting this PR.

@hanzei hanzei requested a review from mrckndt December 21, 2021 21:39
@hanzei hanzei added the 2: Dev Review Requires review by a core committer label Dec 21, 2021
@topelrapha
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ping

@almereyda
Copy link

almereyda commented Feb 19, 2022

I agree this is a useful change that improves container handling accross application deployments.

This will ease configurations, in which all multiples of Mattermost and Database containers are created on the default bridge network, as currently (un-)defined in the configuration examples without explicit networks.

Even if those could be deployed alongside, which is prohibited by a sanity check of the container_names at creation time, a reverse proxy would only be able to route round robin between the multiple individual, differently configured Mattermost web services. Additionally, in that impossible case, they also wouldn't be able to distinguish between their database counterparts, and jump between them undeterministically.

Does it also seem advisable to change this in the other occurence of container_name in this repository?

My intuition would be, to also add networks directives for both Compose files to this PR, and change its title to something like: Improve container service discovery. But I'm not a maintainer here, and leave this for others to decide.

In the current configuration, master kind of assumes no presence of a dedicated web network for a reverse proxy, where no frontend TLS termination can be provided to deployed applications, which is less than common.

@spirosoik
Copy link
Member

👀

@spirosoik spirosoik requested a review from a user March 21, 2022 07:44
@spirosoik spirosoik added 3: Reviews Complete All reviewers have approved the pull request and removed 2: Dev Review Requires review by a core committer labels Jun 9, 2022
@spirosoik spirosoik merged commit 2c9b8cf into mattermost:main Jun 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3: Reviews Complete All reviewers have approved the pull request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants