Update on community packages

[timconsidine]

@james said:

If you find something unclear of lacking in the documentation ...

Just getting my head around the workflow, and I like to "spell things out" :

---

• build the Community App (previously known as a Custom App)
  (my 'old fashioned' approach : docker build, docker push, cloudron install, probably keep doing that because my build script does it, don't fix what ain't broke)

---

• make a CloudronVersions.json file
  
  same folder as project dev folder (Dockerfile, start.sh, CloudronManifest.json, README.md, POSTINSTALL.md etc.)
  • cloudron versions init
  • cloudron versions add
  • maybe add to my build script

---

• why "CloudronVersions" in the plural ?
  
  I guess Cloudron thinking is that a Community App might have v1.0.0, v1.0.1, v2.0.0
  Very complete approach, lovely
  but with cloudron versions revoke I wonder if this will ever be in true in practice (I would likely revoke every old version).

---

• upload CloudronVersions.json to static hosting
  gotcha
  but if I have 10 Custom oops Community Apps, what is Cloudron team envisioning :

  • that I will have 10 Surfer apps (app1.tim.uk, app2.tim.uk, etc) ?

  • Or 1 sectioned Surfer app (communityapps.tim.uk) ?

  • Or no Surfer apps and just stick CloudronVersions.json in the relevant git repo (urls to files from git are not always clear) ?

  • I guess you probably don't care, but I'm intrigued what your expectations are

---

Cloudron CLI help typo ?

% cloudron versions --help 
Usage: cloudron-versions [options] [command]

Hyphenated ?

---

[girish]

@timconsidine said:

upload CloudronVersions.json to static hosting

I think if the packaging code is public, it makes much sense to keep it in version control itself. If packaging code is private, you can upload it to surfer. In the case latter case, I would just have 1 surfer instance for all the apps that I would publish.

Cloudron CLI help typo ?

This is quirk of commander. Which incidentally, I just fixed yesterday - https://git.cloudron.io/platform/cloudron-cli/-/commit/a926a848400de22ddaae30f2139e0556e9461f80

[timconsidine]

@James

% cloudron versions add
Error: Bad changelog format or missing changelog for this version

'CHANGELOG' is present :

* 1.0.0
- Initial release

But I don't see any mention in cloudron docs what format is expected.

Maybe error is because this test community app has a CloudronManifest.json entry of :

"changelog": "file://CHANGELOG",

Does 'cloudron versions add' not recognise/support this way of doing it ?

---

EDIT : I changed CloudronManifest.json to read :

  "changelog": "v1.0.0 - Initial release",

Then 'cloudron versions add' worked

Not suggesting anything needs fixing as such. But potential mismatch of usage. Simple text string is easier - but it won't be practical for complex changelog descriptions.

And this cheat works :

 "changelog": "see CHANGELOG",

Not sure I should be cheating, but ...

'cloudron versions add' seems to handle 'file://POSTINSTALL.md' but not 'file://CHANGELOG'

Being creative, I tried this, thinking POSTINSTALL.md worked with file name extension.

"changelog": "file://CHANGELOG.md",

But it does not.
Seems like 'cloudron versions' treats the entries differently.

[girish]

@timconsidine I will fix the docs but the changelog file format file://CHANGELOG.md is:

[version]
* change 1
* change 2

The CLI tool reads the changelog file from the above format and then populated manifest accordingly into the versions file.

[timconsidine]

@girish
Ah, looking at output of 'cloudron versions add' in CloudronVersions.json, I see !

There is background processing/expectations, pulling only the changlog content for that version.

Neat ! But opaque pending docs clarification.

Still not sure how it will work in practice with long changelog entries, but good discipline and neat handling.

[girish]

@timconsidine it's following the same format as our existing appstore apps. For example, one of our longtime packages - https://git.cloudron.io/packages/gitlab-app/-/blob/master/CHANGELOG?ref_type=heads

[girish]

OK, updated https://docs.cloudron.io/packaging/manifest/#changelog

[timconsidine]

There's a conundrum rattling in my head.

• cloudron build prompts for a registry.
  so supplied a Cloudron-hosted registry
  and all works fine : builds, pushes, shown in registry list
• cloudron versions add does its work
• but cloudron-hosted registries do not support public pulls

So test of installing community app fails.

• am I doing something wrong ?
• or effectively cloudron versions does not support cloudron-hosted registries ?
• if so, this should be surfaced in docs
• if so, is it time to consider support for public pulls in cloudron-hosted registry package ?

Docs should also be clear that community app repo link should be open (publicly accessible), if it does not already do so.

[girish]

Right, the cloudron registry app can only host private packages. We can possibly look into adding support to make it a public registry as well, but afaik this is complicated. We need private push and public pulls - this is not implemented out of the box by the opensource registry project.

[jdaviescoates]

I think this:

@girish said:

Right, the cloudron registry app can only host private packages. We can possibly look into adding support to make it a public registry as well, but afaik this is complicated. We need private push and public pulls - this is not implemented out of the box by the opensource registry project.

Means this is correct:

@timconsidine said:

or effectively cloudron versions does not support cloudron-hosted registries ?

Right?

[girish]

@jdaviescoates Pretty much, yes.

But it can be used for sharing with friends / sharing with people you trust though. Just give them a docker registry app password and they can put it in their cloudrons and then install via the versions file.