---
status: located
opened: 2026-09-26
located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go, mesh-catalog modules/keycloak, mesh-catalog modules/minio, mesh-catalog modules/nextcloud]
fixed-by:
amended-design:
---

# 122 — A module cannot ask for its own public name, so three manifests wrote this mesh's names into the catalogue

## What was observed

Reviewing the open module changes on 2026-09-26, three of them independently put a name belonging to
**one particular mesh** into a module definition, each for a different piece of software and each as
the only way to make the software work:

- The identity provider's manifest gains `KC_HOSTNAME: https://<label>.<public-domain>` as a literal,
  because the software generates absolute URLs and, behind a proxy, cannot derive them.
- The object store's manifest gains `MINIO_BROWSER_REDIRECT_URL: https://<label>.<public-domain>` as
  a literal, for the same reason — its console redirects to an absolute URL.
- The file-sync module's S3 bucket is renamed from `nextcloud` to a name carrying this mesh's own
  name, so the module matches a bucket that already exists here.

No reviewer introduced these carelessly: each is the value the software needs, and there is nowhere
else to put it.

**And they are not the first.** Asked whether merging them would set a precedent, the catalogue
answered no: **five modules already on the main branch carry one**. The clearest is the workflow
automation module, whose environment file states its host, its protocol and a full absolute webhook
URL as literals; two more — the proxy and the builder — carry a complete clone URL for a repository
on this mesh's own forge, scheme, host and port included.

**Counted properly, 2026-09-26.** The five were what a first look found. A sweep of all 71
definitions, for values that could only be true of one installation:

| What is named | Occurrences | Modules |
|---|---|---|
| A public domain, or a name under one | 49 | 26 |
| The node's own name | 58 | 19 |
| A routable IP address | 12 | 1 |
| An absolute path on the machine | 798 | 70 |
| An email address | 0 | 0 |

The path row is [issue 119](../119-a-module-definition-decides-where-its-files-live/00-report.md),
counted again and grown. The rest is this issue. **Thirty of the seventy-one definitions name this
installation** in one of the first three ways, and the worst single case is not a domain at all: a
mail module states the node's own public IPv4 as the address it trusts a real-IP header from, so a
node that moves, or gains a second address, silently stops attributing mail to the right sender. A
private subnet, the mail domain, the site name and the administrator's domain sit in the same block
of values.

Two upstream resolvers are excluded from the count deliberately: naming a public DNS service is a
policy default, true of any mesh that wants it, not a fact about this one.

So the three under review are the visible edge of a pattern the catalogue already follows, which
changes what this issue is for. It is not a matter of refusing three changes; there is no version of
this catalogue today that does not name the mesh it was written in, and a mechanism is the only
thing that removes any of them.

## What the mesh offers instead, and why none of it answers

A manifest may interpolate `${secret:…}`, `${seat:…}`, `${bound:…}`, `${port:…}` and
`${machine:…}`. The machine form resolves `at`, `name` and `address` — the machine's identity on the
**private** network. None of them yields a public name.

The mesh does compose public names: a route contribution's label is joined to the node's public
domain, `<label>.<public-domain>`, and the mesh interprets neither half. That happens inside the
controller when a declaration is built, and the result reaches the proxy that serves the route. It
does not reach the module that asked for the route, so a module that must **tell its own software**
what it will be reached at cannot read what the mesh already worked out.

So the workaround is the only expressible option: write the answer down, in the definition, for the
one mesh it is true of.

## Why it matters beyond these three

A module definition is meant to hold what is true of the module everywhere, with everything
particular to an installation resolved at assignment — the argument
[ADR 0112](../../02-DECISIONS/0112-a-module-definition-names-no-node-mesh-or-path.md) (proposed)
makes in full, and what [issue 119](../119-a-module-definition-decides-where-its-files-live/00-report.md)
found for paths. A hostname is the same kind of fact as a path, and arriving by the same route: not
because anyone disagreed with the principle, but because the mechanism that would honour it does not
exist yet.

The cost is concrete. A second mesh installing the identity provider from this catalogue gets the
first mesh's hostname, and its login flow breaks in a way that looks like a proxy fault. Nothing
checks for it: a literal hostname in an env value is a well-formed string, and no rule distinguishes
it from a version number.

The bucket case is the same shape with a different subject — an adopted resource's real name is also
particular to one installation, and also has nowhere to live but the definition.

## Open questions

- Should a module be able to name what it will be reached at — a `route`-scoped interpolation
  resolving to the composed public name of a route it contributes, so the answer the mesh already
  computes is the one the software is told? That is the smallest fix and it stays within the existing
  vocabulary.
- Does the scheme belong to it? Every instance here wrote `https://`, which is true of a route the
  proxy terminates and not of the module's own port.
- For an adopted resource such as an existing bucket: is that a setting on the assignment (where
  ADR 0112 would put it), and if so what reads it — the provisioner, or the module's own values?
- What check would notice the next one? A definition naming a public domain is detectable in the
  shape of the value, which is more than nothing, and less than a rule.