Cloudron Forum

Phew, that was a wild ride! Major update and refactor of the Agate+ app completed. Updates pushed to https://git.cloudron.io/timconsidine/cloudron-agate-plus WHAT CHANGED : overcame significant routing challenges arising from combination of (a) gemini clients only work on port 1965 unless you specify the port in the address (gem.domain1.tld:19xx), and (b) Cloudron does not support hostname (SNI) checking for a tcpPort multiple instances of Agate+ can now be deployed (e.g. gem.domain1.tld, diamond.domain1.tld, ruby.domain2.tld) and work fully (famous last words ) certificate creation majorly simplified CHALLENGES the original Agate app supports virtual hosts, so why take a different approach ? Because in that case Cloudron features of managing users access to apps and their content would be compromised ( user would get access to all sites in the virtual host) gemini clients (Lagrange, Deedum, Amfora) will ONLY connect to port 1965 unless you put the port in the address (gem.domain1.tld:1966). I think this is cumbersome and unacceptable for daily usage. Cloudron does not currently support hostname/SNI checking of traffic on a tcpPort, just sends all to port 1965, because that's what the client instructed. But without the hostname check, gemini client requests go to the wrong instance. SOLUTION A little bit "creative". Agate+ provides its own proxy in the app the first "master" deployment on port 1965 not only serves out content to clients for its own domain (gem.domain1.tld), but also runs the proxy so, when a client makes a non-port-specified request to ruby.domain2.tld and Cloudron sends this to 1965 because that's what the client said to do, the proxy fetches the correct content from ruby.domain2.tld (running on e.g. port 1966) and returns it to the client, even though the user didn't specify 1966 in the address and the client did not request it from 1966. Cool, hey? additional deployments of Agate+ recognise that they are not the first Agate+ (i.e. not running on port 1965) and function as pure gemini servers (in fact, proxy features actually removed automatically on deployment) there is a small setup step for additional deployments, but I think I have made this really easy : see POSTINSTALL.md Is this complex ? Yes. No. Well, a little, but not really, unless you really want to deep dive into it. Otherwise just follow the instructions. Is this essential ? Yes. Gemini servers simply cannot function on a single Cloudron instance (common IP address) without some form of reverse proxy because Gemini clients will ONLY send to port 1965 if no port is put in the address. And Cloudron does not yet support hostname/SNI routing of tcpPort (only nginx https traffic supports hostname routing). I think this is the neatest solution to a potentially incompatible set of operating conditions (gemini client behaviour, lack of Cloudron support for hostname tcpPort routing). I will be testing more, but you can never have enough testing, so feedback much appreciated. Agate/gemini protocol has got me excited about potential uses, hopefully it can help others too.

There is indeed no documentation for the schema as such Mainly the ldap server is tailored for the apps which authenticate against it and the attributes are not configurable. Due to lack of documentation, the only way to figure out the responses is by looking at the code, which may or may not help. The resonse attributes for a search query is essentially at https://git.cloudron.io/platform/box/-/blob/master/src/ldapserver.js?ref_type=heads#L166 while the supported DNs (which are also hardcoded) can be found at https://git.cloudron.io/platform/box/-/blob/master/src/ldapserver.js?ref_type=heads#L646 following.

Thank you @James In the interim, I am attempting a workaround <can't find fingers-crossed emoji>

I have merged the topics.

Hello @charlesnw With this commit: https://git.cloudron.io/platform/docker-base-image/-/commit/2e4f7fd5fde83652567dd0a00a695f523bef98d1 yarn was removed from the docker base image. So yes, yarn is no longer included in any app by default.

Hello @Laktasekampagne Thanks for the update. No need to apologize, we are always happy to help!

Great question! Outline does not support end-to-end encryption (E2EE) or client-side encryption, even in the self-hosted version. The encryption it uses — TLS for data in transit and AES-256 for data at rest — applies at the server level, meaning the server (whether cloud-hosted or self-hosted) still has access to the unencrypted document contents. So, while data is securely transmitted and stored, it is not encrypted in a way that prevents server access, which is what true E2EE or client-side encryption would provide.

OK - Internally, this went from "looks cool" couple of days ago to "must have" a few moments ago. Beside with my unlimited gratitude and limited packaging skills and experience, is there any other way I can help make Twenty on Cloudron happen sooner than later?