Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. MiroTalk
  3. How to modify the 'config.js' file?

How to modify the 'config.js' file?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved MiroTalk
20 Posts 8 Posters 2.6k Views 8 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      shrey
      wrote on last edited by
      #1

      I'd like to edit the config.js file to make some config changes, particularly, enable server-side recording, as described here:

      https://discord.com/channels/838103530979196938/1113705414190706749/1208004070963544155

      9192eac0-1819-40ae-a943-eb683d008c07-image.png


      I don't think that's currently possible, right?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • KubernetesK Offline
        KubernetesK Offline
        Kubernetes
        App Dev
        wrote on last edited by
        #2

        As far as I understood the current version of MiroTalk on Cloudron is not the SFU variant. So it is without server, but use WebRTC for communication which is pure peer to peer.

        The cloudron Team seems to prepare everything to be able to also provide the SFU Version of MiroTalk. I don't know how the planned timeline is.

        1 Reply Last reply
        2
        • necrevistonnezrN Offline
          necrevistonnezrN Offline
          necrevistonnezr
          wrote on last edited by
          #3

          See https://forum.cloudron.io/post/84224

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          2
          • necrevistonnezrN necrevistonnezr

            See https://forum.cloudron.io/post/84224

            S Offline
            S Offline
            shrey
            wrote on last edited by
            #4

            @necrevistonnezr Thanks for the link.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • nebulonN Offline
              nebulonN Offline
              nebulon
              Staff
              wrote on last edited by
              #5

              That is correct current MiroTalk is p2p, the SFU variant will come with next Cloudron release.

              aessenA 1 Reply Last reply
              3
              • nebulonN nebulon

                That is correct current MiroTalk is p2p, the SFU variant will come with next Cloudron release.

                aessenA Offline
                aessenA Offline
                aessen
                wrote on last edited by
                #6

                @nebulon

                I've been tracking MiroTalk's rise since Jitsi’s decline— given Jitsi's frequent crashes across various servers, wow what a decline. My focus is on the SFU version amidst its alternatives: P2P, C2C, and BRO within the MiroTalk Web Admin suite to test all of them.

                1. What held back SFU's initial adoption on Cloudron? Despite P2P and SFU's apparent similarity, differences in security features, like meeting locks available in SFU but not P2P, and some other custom settings.

                Is P2P's initial preference due to its simpler setup, and if so, what privacy and customization aspects are compromised by it being pure WebRTC. It can only do one and one then until SFU becomes fully viable?

                KubernetesK 1 Reply Last reply
                2
                • aessenA aessen

                  @nebulon

                  I've been tracking MiroTalk's rise since Jitsi’s decline— given Jitsi's frequent crashes across various servers, wow what a decline. My focus is on the SFU version amidst its alternatives: P2P, C2C, and BRO within the MiroTalk Web Admin suite to test all of them.

                  1. What held back SFU's initial adoption on Cloudron? Despite P2P and SFU's apparent similarity, differences in security features, like meeting locks available in SFU but not P2P, and some other custom settings.

                  Is P2P's initial preference due to its simpler setup, and if so, what privacy and customization aspects are compromised by it being pure WebRTC. It can only do one and one then until SFU becomes fully viable?

                  KubernetesK Offline
                  KubernetesK Offline
                  Kubernetes
                  App Dev
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #7

                  @aessen The reason is that for SFU some Port Range for Communication is requrired. This is currently not supported by the Cloudron Platform. AFAIK they are already working on this to support the SFU with one of the next Cloudron Releases.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  2
                  • girishG Offline
                    girishG Offline
                    girish
                    Staff
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #8

                    @aessen as @Kubernetes said, this was because of missing port range support. this is now supported in 7.7 which is already out (as unstable).

                    aessenA 1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • girishG Offline
                      girishG Offline
                      girish
                      Staff
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #9

                      https://docs.cloudron.io/packaging/manifest/#tcpports has the docs for the port range support (via portCount field).

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • girishG girish has marked this topic as solved on
                      • nebulonN Offline
                        nebulonN Offline
                        nebulon
                        Staff
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #10

                        The SFU app package is now released as unstable for testing. There is a config.js in /app/data which allows selective things to be configured. For now only those properties can be changed to avoid accidental user-error, but we can add more: https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/mirotalksfu-app/-/blob/main/config.js?ref_type=heads#L19

                        KubernetesK 1 Reply Last reply
                        3
                        • nebulonN nebulon

                          The SFU app package is now released as unstable for testing. There is a config.js in /app/data which allows selective things to be configured. For now only those properties can be changed to avoid accidental user-error, but we can add more: https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/mirotalksfu-app/-/blob/main/config.js?ref_type=heads#L19

                          KubernetesK Offline
                          KubernetesK Offline
                          Kubernetes
                          App Dev
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #11

                          @nebulon I did a small test with three devices and two users (all in the same local network). During first install, I got an Task Error because the Port Range were already in use(?). However, when I gave it a second try it did work to install. The use of MiroTalk was very smooth without serios issues. I just had some trouble with configuring the Webcam for to high quality, which results in a drop of the session for the specific user.

                          Thanks a lot for your effort to migrate it to Cloudron!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • nebulonN Offline
                            nebulonN Offline
                            nebulon
                            Staff
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #12

                            Do you have more info on that port range task issue?

                            KubernetesK 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • nebulonN nebulon

                              Do you have more info on that port range task issue?

                              KubernetesK Offline
                              KubernetesK Offline
                              Kubernetes
                              App Dev
                              wrote on last edited by Kubernetes
                              #13

                              @nebulon Unfortunately I didn't copy the log entries, but I think it was related to that the port 40098 is already allocated by another application. I had the MiroTalk P2P installed before, after reading that you created an initial package, maybe there was some kind of conflict?

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • nebulonN Offline
                                nebulonN Offline
                                nebulon
                                Staff
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #14

                                strange though, it should have already thrown an error during install form submission, not during the app task.

                                KubernetesK 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • nebulonN nebulon

                                  strange though, it should have already thrown an error during install form submission, not during the app task.

                                  KubernetesK Offline
                                  KubernetesK Offline
                                  Kubernetes
                                  App Dev
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #15

                                  @nebulon Here, I found this in the Docker Logs:

                                  Mar 20 17:40:25 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:40:25.995595821Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=fc77503dbbb7fb9ffe9ff5f361ab6652f4c946c66da86d028b0f7f31abdc9e59 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  [no timestamp]  module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:41:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:41:32.310275336Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:42:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:42:32.322513808Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:42:46 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:42:46.284190805Z" level=warning msg="Failed to allocate and map port 40098-40098: listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:40098: bind: address already in use"
                                  Mar 20 17:42:46 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:42:46.598787393Z" level=error msg="1494637c834e0c6a9026d18d6c3d008edc0dbca0da12ad2fbe8a3339d7d4f361 cleanup: failed to delete container from containerd: no such container"
                                  Mar 20 17:42:46 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:42:46.599156620Z" level=error msg="Handler for POST /containers/182d9fc2-aa0e-4951-804f-b4c4a00b94a7/start returned error: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint 182d9fc2-aa0e-4951-804f-b4c4a00b94a7 (d5a71e2b0df94bff7ae4163cc294796f747b1f86075a3eecbfd3a9e68385d6d7): listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:40098: bind: address already in use"
                                  Mar 20 17:43:06 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:43:06.073197322Z" level=warning msg="Failed to allocate and map port 40098-40098: listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:40098: bind: address already in use"
                                  Mar 20 17:43:06 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:43:06.449953736Z" level=error msg="6864b23c80a98ea1f01687e09ccfe001f20ce1651668fa6912b892575de48247 cleanup: failed to delete container from containerd: no such container"
                                  Mar 20 17:43:06 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:43:06.450040583Z" level=error msg="Handler for POST /containers/182d9fc2-aa0e-4951-804f-b4c4a00b94a7/start returned error: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint 182d9fc2-aa0e-4951-804f-b4c4a00b94a7 (9735e02f4f548b3b4d02fbf53055e2ed9e2c7dbb8f76900925c7e702fdaab842): listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:40098: bind: address already in use"
                                  Mar 20 17:43:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:43:32.404387662Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:44:24 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:44:24.018592015Z" level=info msg="Configured log driver does not support reads, enabling local file cache for container logs" container=116ce5bd025a48a0cb1b66d3940fa3cfab0bd6475886df9523193ae9552afc24 driver=syslog
                                  Mar 20 17:44:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:44:32.294156425Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:45:26 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:45:26.190620327Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=fc77503dbbb7fb9ffe9ff5f361ab6652f4c946c66da86d028b0f7f31abdc9e59 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:45:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:45:32.300180330Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:46:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:46:32.271952666Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:47:32 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:47:32.291207354Z" level=info msg="ignoring event" container=711bac76b7bd8a27551480631e20cbf8e604bfc1dd8f05bddf6b0d339ac84d97 module=libcontainerd namespace=moby topic=/tasks/delete type="*events.TaskDelete"
                                  Mar 20 17:47:40 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:47:40.867731692Z" level=info msg="Container failed to exit within 10s of signal 15 - using the force" container=116ce5bd025a48a0cb1b66d3940fa3cfab0bd6475886df9523193ae9552afc24
                                  Mar 20 17:47:40 cloudron-neu dockerd[1700124]: time="2024-03-20T16:47:40.958953058Z" 
                                  

                                  It was Port 40098 - (will correct this in my previous post)

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • nebulonN Offline
                                    nebulonN Offline
                                    nebulon
                                    Staff
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #16

                                    That is correct, but it should have prevented you from selecting the ports in the first place. At least here I am not able to reproduce this.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • KubernetesK Offline
                                      KubernetesK Offline
                                      Kubernetes
                                      App Dev
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #17

                                      Here is another report in a dedicated thread. Let's move any discussions regarding this problem to that threat.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      1
                                      • girishG girish

                                        @aessen as @Kubernetes said, this was because of missing port range support. this is now supported in 7.7 which is already out (as unstable).

                                        aessenA Offline
                                        aessenA Offline
                                        aessen
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #18

                                        @girish and @nebulon I really want to thank you for once again, as you always do, taking the time to individually address concerns and providing insight and details as you do. I’ve will also begin some testing of the SFU version of MiroTalk in its unstable form. Keep it up!

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        2
                                        • BenoitB Offline
                                          BenoitB Offline
                                          Benoit
                                          translator
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #19

                                          Hi @girish et @nebulon thanks for the mirotalk app ! I tried theses features https://docs.mirotalk.com/mirotalk-p2p/host-protection/#when-host_protected-is-enabled but it seems it doesn't work : i can authenticate my adminb account and create a room but invited participants can't join without authentication, the HOST_USER_AUTH=false parameter doesn't change this. is it normal ? Thanks again !

                                          avatar1024A 1 Reply Last reply
                                          3
                                          • BenoitB Benoit

                                            Hi @girish et @nebulon thanks for the mirotalk app ! I tried theses features https://docs.mirotalk.com/mirotalk-p2p/host-protection/#when-host_protected-is-enabled but it seems it doesn't work : i can authenticate my adminb account and create a room but invited participants can't join without authentication, the HOST_USER_AUTH=false parameter doesn't change this. is it normal ? Thanks again !

                                            avatar1024A Offline
                                            avatar1024A Offline
                                            avatar1024
                                            wrote on last edited by avatar1024
                                            #20

                                            @Benoit said in How to modify the 'config.js' file?:

                                            Hi @girish et @nebulon thanks for the mirotalk app ! I tried theses features https://docs.mirotalk.com/mirotalk-p2p/host-protection/#when-host_protected-is-enabled but it seems it doesn't work : i can authenticate my adminb account and create a room but invited participants can't join without authentication, the HOST_USER_AUTH=false parameter doesn't change this. is it normal ? Thanks again !

                                            I have the same problem. Both with the p2p and the SFU version.

                                            I have host protected: true and user_auth: false. To create a room I login with a user as a host and then participants cannot access the room, they are also prompted to login.

                                            I created a separate thread for this issue.

                                            1 Reply Last reply
                                            3
                                            Reply
                                            • Reply as topic
                                            Log in to reply
                                            • Oldest to Newest
                                            • Newest to Oldest
                                            • Most Votes


                                              • Login

                                              • Don't have an account? Register

                                              • Login or register to search.
                                              • First post
                                                Last post
                                              0
                                              • Categories
                                              • Recent
                                              • Tags
                                              • Popular
                                              • Bookmarks
                                              • Search