Invalid environment variabled for new owncloud rockon

The existing official owncloud rockon uses a depreciated docker container, so I thought I’d re-do it using the new official one, however I’m running into an error when creating the rockon: invalid environment variabled(OWNCLOUD_ADMIN_PASSWORD).

From a google search, it seems rockstor had/has a bug where if you have multiple containers in a single rockon, the environmental variables are shared among them (or at least checked to see if all of them have that variable). There was even a ticket created (https://github.com/rockstor/rockstor-core/issues/1588) and I saw a pull request for a fix, but I’m still getting the same error.

Is my definition wrong or do we still have a bug in the system? (website and favicon removed from definition due to being a new user and 2 link limit)

{
“owncloud_official”: {
“description”: “owncloud official”,
“ui”: {
“slug”: “”
},
“version”: “1.0”,
“containers”: {
“owncloud_official”: {
“image”: “owncloud/server”,
“launch_order”: 3,
“opts”: [
[
“–net”,
“host”
],
["–link", “mariadb:db”],
["–link", “redis:redis”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_DB_TYPE=mysql”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_DB_HOST=db”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_DB_NAME=owncloud”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_DB_USERNAME=owncloud”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_DB_PASSWORD=ownclou”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_REDIS_ENABLED=true”],
["-e",“OWNCLOUD_REDIS_HOST=redis”]
],
“ports”: {
“8080”: {
“description”: “Owncloud web traffic. You may need to open it(protocol: tcp) on your firewall.”,
“host_default”: 8080,
“label”: “Server port”,
“protocol”: “tcp”,
“ui”: false
},
“8443”: {
“description”: “Owncloud encrypted web traffic. You may need to open it(protocol: tcp) on your firewall.”,
“host_default”: 8443,
“label”: “Server port”,
“protocol”: “tcp”,
“ui”: true
}
},
“volumes”: {
“/mnt/data”: {
“description”: “owncloud data”,
“label”: “owncloud data”
}
},
“environment”: {
“OWNCLOUD_DOMAIN”: {
“description”: “Enter the owncloud domain name”,
“label”: “owncloud domain”,
“index”: 1
},
“OWNCLOUD_ADMIN_USERNAME”: {
“description”: “Enter the owncloud admin username”,
“label”: “owncloud admin username”,
“index”: 2
},
“OWNCLOUD_ADMIN_PASSWORD”: {
“description”: “Enter the owncloud admin password”,
“label”: “owncloud admin password”,
“index”: 3
}

  		}
  	},
  	"redis": {
  		"image": "webhippie/redis:latest",
  		"launch_order": 1,
  		"opts": [
  			["-e","REDIS_DATABASES=1"]
  		],
  		"volumes": {
  			"/var/lib/redis": {
  				"description": "redis data",
  				"label": "redis data"
  			}
  		}
  	},
  	"mariadb": {
  		"image": "webhippie/mariadb",
  		"launch_order": 2,
  		"opts": [
  			["-e","MYSQL_RANDOM_ROOT_PASSWORD=yes"],
                                    ["-e", "MARIADB_USERNAME=owncloud"],
                                    ["-e", "MARIADB_PASSWORD=owncloud"]
  		],
  		"volumes": {
  			"/var/lib/mysql": {
  				"description": "database files",
  				"label": "database files"
  			},
  			"/var/lib/backup": {
  				"description": "backup database files",
  				"label": "backup database files"
  			}
  		}
  	}
  }

}

}

@ebolam A belated welcome to the Rockstor community.

If the pull request you are referring to is:

then it wasn’t actually mered.

I think @Flox (who helped you previously) might be best to answer this one, he states in the pr comments that the change their-in worked for him. It may be that the pr needs to be rebased and re-examined. But I’m not currently that up on that area of the code myself.

That’s unfortunate that it wasn’t merged. Is there a reason you know of as to why (It was more than a year ago)? Was the code not up to snuff, or is/was the rockons not that well curated by the devs? Or was the general philosophy to do separate rockons for each container?

Hi @ebolam,
I know it’s quite late for giving my 2 cents on this, but I thought I’d still share a few things.

There has been quite a few changes that I know of since this PR, so it probably would need to be reworked on. It is an illustration of how long this PR has been up for review, though. As you can see on the corresponding issue, there was a very good discussion about the corresponding changes, and that may have played into the fact that the PR wasn’t merged at the time.

On a (hopefully) better note, I’ve been trying on improving the few obstacles and limitations I’ve encountered with the Rock-On system recently, and the one you just highlighted is one of them. I’ve been able to add a few basic supports for docker containers (see Rockstor 3.9.2-39 and -40) and we’ve also add a related and very good suggestion for improvement by @Luke-Nukem about implementing docker networks, which would help greatly with multi-container rockons.

Sorry I wasn’t able to provide an actual answer to your problem, but know that this is personally an important goal for me to be able to create easy-to-use multi-container Rock-Ons so hopefully we’ll be able to see this in the (very) near future.