724e9ce19d6b9db3f545b3c53a24a001f78e4f4e
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 bermudalamb
|
724e9ce19d |
docs(ops): say that the backup directories have to be created (#192)
The stack gained two backup services in #147 and nothing has ever told anyone to create the directories they mount. `backup-and-restore.md` reads from both paths and the compose file mounts both, but no document creates them — while the README does exactly that for QA's data directories, ownership notes and all. Production's cutover runbook said nothing. Hit for real during the cutover: both backup containers sat in Created, never started, and `docker logs` on them reported only that nothing matched the filter, because a container that never ran has no output. Portainer showed them beside the healthy ones and the stack looked deployed. That silence is the reason this is worth a step of its own rather than a footnote. A backup regime that never started is indistinguishable from a working one until someone needs a restore, which is the failure mode the healthchecks in #147 exist to catch — and those healthchecks cannot fire on a container that is not running. The cutover runbook gains the directory creation before the stack is created, and step 7 now counts containers rather than only checking the app: four, all Up, with Created called out as the thing to look for. Counted from the compose file rather than from memory — the first draft said five. `backup-and-restore.md` gains the same note where it describes the destinations, since anyone reading that page is already thinking about paths. No `chown`, deliberately stated: both backup images run as root, unlike the Postgres image whose data directory needs uid 999, and an unnecessary chown instruction is how people learn to run them without thinking. |
||
|
bermudalamb
|
0cec9b3c1f |
docs(ops): name the crash loop the cutover runbook was most likely to cause (#175)
Step 7 listed a missing `ADMIN_GATE_SECRET` — a warning the container starts through — and said nothing about the three PayPal secrets, which are a hard error that crash-loops it. That is backwards: the secrets are the likeliest thing to be missing after a stack replacement, because Portainer stack variables belong to the stack and are discarded with it, and `DEMO_MODE` is false in production so the app refuses to start without them. Hit for real following the runbook. The verify section now shows the actual log block, says what it means, and gives the way to tell a missing variable from a misnamed one: a hardcoded value cannot be missing, so its absence from the error list proves nothing, while an interpolated variable that stays quiet while others complain proves substitution works and those others are simply unset. That is the reading that turns the log into a diagnosis instead of a list. It also says the loop is harmless while the values are fetched — the container refuses before it serves anything or touches data — and where the values live if the old stack is already gone, since the webhook id in particular is readable rather than only recreatable. Step 2 now names every interpolated variable rather than describing them in general, and states the consequence of each class going missing. A general instruction to record the environment is easy to read as already done. |
||
|
bermudalamb
|
cf9003bc2d |
docs(ops): write down how to cut production over to the committed compose file (#175)
#118 put `docker-compose.prod.yml` in the repository and argued at length for why it belongs there. It never produced the procedure for getting production from where it is — a stack living in Portainer's web editor — to where that file expects it to be. What existed was scattered and none of it was a procedure. The compose header described the destination: name the stack this, deploy it as a git repository stack with these settings, rename any variables whose names differ. The README's deployment section is a good runbook for the routine redeploy, and assumes the stack is already in the right form. So the riskiest deployment operation this project has was the one with no steps written down. `docs/ops/production-stack-cutover.md` is those steps, in the order that matters, with the two facts that decide whether the operation is safe stated up front rather than left to be inferred from the volumes block. The first is that all persistent data is bind-mounted from the NAS filesystem rather than held in Docker-managed volumes, so deleting the stack cannot lose the database or the product images. That is what makes the cutover recoverable at all, and step 2 verifies it rather than trusting it — the `docker inspect` there discriminates `bind` from `volume` and says to stop on `volume`, because this runbook does not cover that case. The second is that both services set an explicit `container_name`, so the old containers must be gone before the new stack starts or the deploy fails on a collision that reads like a Portainer bug rather than a sequencing mistake. It also captures what is simply lost if not recorded first. Portainer stack variables belong to the stack and are discarded with it; they are all secrets, and a stack brought back up with a different `DB_PASSWORD` than the data directory was initialised with cannot authenticate against its own database. Recording them is step 2 and it is what makes the rollback credible. The verification section separates the boot warnings that are correct in production — no mail allowlist, no uploads origin yet — from the one that means a variable never arrived. That distinction is the whole failure mode #118 was about: a stack variable whose name matches nothing in the file is substituted nowhere and never reaches the container, and the failure reads as "I set it and it says it is not set". Every diagnostic command in it was run rather than written from memory. The mount inspection was checked against a container that genuinely uses a named volume, to confirm it reports the difference the step depends on. The compose header now points at the runbook for the procedure and keeps the rationale that belongs at the point of use — why there is no `build:`, why most values are hardcoded, why `NODE_ENV` is absent. The README says plainly that its section is the routine deploy and links to the other one. Closes #175 |