chore: In gnodev, add option web-help-remote, use it in gnoweb

[jefft0]

gnodev starts gnoweb which can show a help page with the gnokey command for each function. The help for the gnokey command includes -remote which is the same as the gnodev listening address. But the gnokey command is meant to be used from a different computer, and the address which gnodev listens on can be different than the address to connect from outside. (In our use case, gnodev runs in a docker container behind a reverse proxy.)

The gnoweb command already has an option -help-remote which is used on the help page. When gnodev starts gnoweb, it gives its own listening address. This PR adds a gnodev command line option -web-help-remote . If supplied, this overrides and is used when starting gnoweb.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 54.60%. Comparing base (25aabf9) to head (0e6e6a7). Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
contribs/gnodev/cmd/gnodev/main.go	0.00%	7 Missing :warning:
contribs/gnodev/cmd/gnodev/setup_web.go	0.00%	4 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2135      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.61%   54.60%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         579      579              
  Lines       77899    77907       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits        42542    42544       +2     
- Misses      32185    32192       +7     
+ Partials     3172     3171       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contribs/gnodev	23.81% <0.00%> (-0.15%)	:arrow_down:
contribs/gnofaucet	15.31% <ø> (+0.85%)	:arrow_up:
contribs/gnokeykc	0.00% <ø> (ø)
contribs/gnomd	0.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[gfanton]

Thinking more about this, I'm not really sure about adding this. I don't want to have to duplicate every flag of gnoweb into gnodev. What do you think about simply running a separate instance of gnoweb on the side targeting your gnodev instance?

[jefft0]

@gfanton, I don't see an option in gnodev to not start gnoweb. What should we do if we run gnoweb separately?

[gfanton]

don't see an option in gnodev to not start gnoweb.

I think will should probably add an option to disable gnoweb in gnodev

What should we do if we run gnoweb separately?

If you run gnoweb separately, you can use the -help-remote, -remote, and -bind flags to correctly achieve what you want. Assuming you're running gnodev within a Docker container or behind a reverse proxy, it should be easy to not expose gnoweb on gnodev (even if it's actually running) and run it on another instance.

[jefft0]

Thanks. Sounds good. Do you want me to change this PR to "Add an option to disable gnoweb in gnodev" ? What should the gnodev option be? There is already an option -web-listener . Should we allow -web-listener none ?

[D4ryl00]

If I can argue, I think gnodev should handle every service for us, like a hub. So it would stay simple for us to deploy the services through gnodev. I don't see what would be the problem to recreate each option in gnodev for each services. So for us (devs), we would have a central configuration for all services. It would be great. If you categorize the options list in gnodev --help, it would be easy to find them. No matter if there are 100 options. The more there are, the more gnodev would be useful.

It's my opinion.

[moul]

Gnodev should be the go-to tool for developers to work locally and showcase their projects. Running multiple manual containers should be considered advanced, while using gnodev in Docker can be a standard method to isolate multiple services on a server. Therefore, I recommend enabling gnodev to configure gnoweb accordingly.

People developing or running standalone Gnoweb should be experienced individuals or actual Gnoweb developers, in my opinion.

[gfanton]

@moul I've discussed with @jefft0 and I agree we can include those flags in gnodev as it doesn't cost much yet. I just want to avoid duplicating a lot of documentation/code and reaching a point where we have to maintain it symmetrically.