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

Add external address to full node setup #5117

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 5, 2025
Merged

Conversation

Dr-Electron
Copy link
Contributor

Description of change

Added external address to full node setup

Links to any relevant issues

Fixes #4887.

Type of change

  • Documentation Fix

Change checklist

  • I have followed the contribution guidelines for this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have checked that new and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

@Dr-Electron Dr-Electron requested review from a team as code owners January 31, 2025 12:40
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 31, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

4 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
apps-backend ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 10:14pm
apps-ui-kit ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 10:14pm
rebased-explorer ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 10:14pm
wallet-dashboard ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 10:14pm

@github-actions github-actions bot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 31, 2025
@iota-ci iota-ci added the devx Issues related to the DevX team label Jan 31, 2025

#### Devnet

```yaml
p2p-config:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

imho not a good idea to remove the p2p-config because people won't understand how the yaml should be indented

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I thought about that too. I questioned what will be more likely. People not copying it correctly or people duplicating the p2p-config 😅.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remove it and add a small note about indentation?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tbh that is even worst. Indenting yaml is complicated enough. When you copy without having the p2p-config container you have no clue how many white-spaces you need in front. Displaying the p2p-config allows you to compare to your configuration.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tbf if people are not smart enough to do a copy and paste I'm wondering if they should operate a node :trollface:
But I will re-add it 👍


#### Devnet

```yaml
p2p-config:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remove it and add a small note about indentation?

@Dr-Electron Dr-Electron requested a review from alexsporn February 4, 2025 22:13
@alexsporn alexsporn merged commit 1f3c6ba into develop Feb 5, 2025
39 of 42 checks passed
@alexsporn alexsporn deleted the devx/external-address branch February 5, 2025 07:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
devx Issues related to the DevX team documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improve Fullnode documentation with peering information
6 participants