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

Update Readme with non default nats address #33

Closed
thogar-computer opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Update Readme with non default nats address #33

thogar-computer opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@thogar-computer
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,
I have been following the instruction to deploy WASM within a Kubernetes cluster - pretty much got there now :) , however my pods for the operator are failing as they cannot connect to the NATS leafnode.

seems the code defaults to nats.default

"nats://nats.default.svc.cluster.local".to_string()

however if a user is following the readme they set up the nats instance with a name of nats-cluster

helm upgrade --install -f values.yaml nats-cluster nats/nats

This should be the change needed in the instructions to set the correct value

  # The lattice to connect the hosts to
  lattice: 83a5b52e-17cf-4080-bac8-f844099f142e
  # Additional labels to apply to the host other than the defaults set in the operator
  hostLabels:
    some-label: value
  # The address to connect to nats 
  natsAddress: nats://nats-cluster.default.svc.cluster.local  
  # Which wasmCloud version to use
  version: 1.0.2
  # The name of a secret in the same namespace that provides the required secrets.
  secretName: my-wasmcloud-cluster

if noone has any issues, I am happy to open a PR

@joonas
Copy link
Member

joonas commented May 17, 2024

@thogar-computer hey, first off thank you for tracking this down and opening up an issue about it!

You're absolutely right that the values we have in the README would not work with the default in the operator.

There's some historical context as to why we chose to set those up the way they are, and we really should change that, but in the meantime I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't mind opening a PR to update the instructions to match the correct values, that would be fantastic!

@protochron
Copy link
Contributor

Fixed by #34

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants