Merged
Conversation
Author
|
I also exposed |
This was referenced Jul 11, 2023
kevin1024
requested changes
Jul 19, 2023
|
Is there an update? looking forward for this change |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proposal for an entry-point that allows changing the port that is used inside the container.
This is slightly in conflict with the
EXPOSEline from the Dockerfile. But it works nonetheless. For most people, port 80 works so that should not play a big role. I don't know of a way to make theEXPOSEline variable for new container start-ups as the EXPOSE line is used during the build phase.An alternative solution would be to simply start it up on a non-privileged port by default. But that is non backwards-compatible and will break existing deployments.
I had to make a slight adjustment to the
pipenvcall to make it work with newer versions ofpipenv