What's coming in 7.3

[robi]

@girish not sure if you saw this post on this topic which suggests this is totally doable: https://forum.cloudron.io/post/44498

[eganonoa]

@robi problem for me is that I not only need 443 but also turn outside of cloudron irrespective because we stick cloudflare in front of all things cloudron. So irrespective adding an external turn has its uses.

[robi]

@eganonoa if you have advanced cloudflare features, then you can take care of that too.

[eganonoa]

@robi Business, not enterprise, so no Spectrum for TCP/UDP I'm afraid.

[robi]

@eganonoa okay, then possibly solved via VPN if all the clients are internal.

[jimcavoli]

LDAP groups would be huge. Been dying for that a couple years now

[eganonoa]

@robi That's what we do internally indeed. But we're spreading this out to our community now. So no dice. We must have an external turnserver.

[robi]

Volume backups option? Avoiding shared between N apps being backed up N times..

[girish]

@robi currently, volumes are not backed up at all.

[robi]

@girish can you add that to 7.3 or elsewhere?

[avatar1024]

Is there a plan for more backup backends like restic / borg for 7.3?

I recall it being listed for 7.2 at some point but looks like it got dropped off the list due to the need for a speedy release.

[girish]

@avatar1024 work has already started to split the backup code into separate formats, but I don't know if we can add a restic backend for 7.3 as such.

[girish]

Filenames can be optionally encrypted. Main advantage is that this allows longer filenames with rsync.

[d19dotca]

Excited for all the mail-related feature improvements / additions.

[marcusquinn]

@girish said in What's coming in 7.3:

External app links in Dashboard

How's this coming along? Any ETA on 7.3?

[girish]

@marcusquinn ETA is end of this month.

As for external app links in Dashboard, it's already implemented. I will let @nebulon post some screenshots.

[ApplegateR]

@girish noooooo waaaayyy super exciting

[Lonkle]

@girish said in What's coming in 7.3:

OpenVPN/Wireguard integration

Need any help with this Girish? I still have my forked Cloudron that can run apps thru an OpenVPN connection (not Wireguard tho but the same concept should apply).

[fuzzynet]

Can you explain the openvpn/wireguard integration feature?

[girish]

@fuzzynet A common use case for Cloudron is to host private / internal apps. There is no reason have these exposed to the internet as such. This feature will enable (specific) apps to be accessible only via VPN/Wireguard.

[timconsidine]

@girish that's cool !
Security is constant bug-bear and this will be very useful.

[fbartels]

@girish said in What's coming in 7.3:

accessible only via VPN/Wireguard.

would that wireguard then also be hosted on Cloudron or is that a separate installation?

Both could probably have valid use cases. At work we already have wireguard, so I would want to use an existing, not cloudron based wireguard. For new installations wireguard being part of Cloudron word of course also be nice.

[girish]

@fbartels

would that wireguard then also be hosted on Cloudron or is that a separate installation?

Don't have a specific plan here. As you said, both cases are valid, I think we will go with whatever is easily possible for the initial release. I will update here as we explore implementing this .

[nebulon]

We have added the external app link support now as well. You can think of this as basically some bookmark system to allow putting plain URLs as links into the dashboard to provide organizations a way to use the Cloudron dashboard as a landing page for their users. The link visibility works the same way as for any other app and generally those links look just like apps on the Cloudron.

The UI is currently being finalized but looks mostly like this:

[micmc]

@nebulon WOW again Neb that's pretty much awesome and indeed quite useful ! I even believe that sould answers many requests for something in the like, at least temporarily, it's a start. Thanks for the good ideas and the great work.

[fbartels]

@nebulon said in What's coming in 7.3:

but looks mostly like this:

The "running" value at the digitalocean entry looks kind of weird. Ist that backed by a http check or could just be omitted for these kind of entries?

[d19dotca]

@fbartels Agreed that it seems odd (unless it's supported by health checks then I guess that makes sense). I kind of think that should just be empty where it currently says "running", or otherwise allow it to be customizable text so admins can make it say whatever they want such as "external" or "bookmark" or something like that.

[ruihildt]

@nebulon UpstreamUri is a bit nebulous. I suggest instead "External URL".

[ApplegateR]

@ruihildt more official and more clearer

[nebulon]

Thanks for the feedback, I will revise the UI bits there. Currently we do not check health of the external url, but I had this in my stash for a release where we maybe focus a bit more on the healthcheck and uptime reporting, but I agree without that the "running" label really makes no sense.

[marcusquinn]

@nebulon The running health-check makes sense to me, especially for other self-hosted apps on their own separate servers. Perhaps just a tick-box to enable?

What doesn't make sense to me is the Running text for non-admins though, the text has no utility to a user that expects all things to be running anyway, unless told otherwise, in which case then text can be shown to say whatever else might be happening that isn't running.

[girish]

@marcusquinn I don't think the app status is displayed for non-admin users but I will double check.

[plusone-nick]

@girish it is displayed

[vjvanjungg]

adding external links is a great feature. i’d imagine it’d be so useful.

i sometimes wanted to add a little note (welcome note or quick first-time user guide) for the new users - with no logins or complicated passwords to remember of that sort. You’ve just given me a great idea. With the meemo note link, i think this could finally get done.