jschoubben
5012f61b00
The manifest named /services/qbittorrent/config and /var/lib/mesh/qbittorrent/
config.json, host paths ADR 0112 takes out of definitions. The config dir is now
pathless (${dir:config}); the runtime's config and route binding live in a
placed state dir.
The image is pinned to 5.2.3_v2.0.14-ls477, the digest ace runs; the old pin
(ls474) was older than the running build.
The tools could not log in to qBittorrent 5.2: it answers a good login with 204
and no body (not 200 "Ok.") and names its cookie QBT_SID_<port> (not SID). The
client now accepts both shapes and sends the cookie back under the name it was
set. It also read the user as "admin" always; it now reads WebUI\Username from
qBittorrent.conf on the read-only config mount.
qBittorrent refuses a request whose Host header names a port other than the one
it listens on. With the mesh publishing 8080 on another machine port, the tools
and every consumer dialling that port were refused. The WebUI now listens on
8112 (WEBUI_PORT, ace's and HAL's number, and clear of unifi's 8080) and is
published on the same number. The torrent port 6881 tcp+udp was not declared at
all; it is now, long-form, because the client announces it to peers.
sonarr, radarr and lidarr reached it by container name on HAL's shared network.
qbittorrent now provides qbittorrent-api (node scope: a download client must share
the consumer's spool) and serves scheme, port, url-base and username; the
password is the operator-accepted pair credential, as for #156. The web endpoint
is routed (label qbittorrent). The runtime dials ${port:8112}, as #154 does.
Verified: catalogue tests with MESH_CATALOGUE set (not skipped); rendered for ace
with pins and without (8112:8112, 6881:6881, 6881:6881/udp either way); a
throwaway of the pinned image on an ace-shaped conf showed the port-mismatch
refusal, then on a same-number port the compiled client logged in, read the user
from qBittorrent.conf, listed torrents and was refused a wrong password and the
default user; strict typecheck and the Dockerfile build pass.
mesh-catalog
The Novox Mesh catalogue. The modules the mesh builds, provisions and runs — as manifests, one
per module under modules/.
This is data, not a control-plane concern. The manifests describe what a module is: what it
provides, what it requires, the seats it claims, the resources the host applies for it. The
engine that reads them — parsing, eligibility resolution, sealing, declaration emission — lives
in the control plane (novox/mesh-controller, internal/catalogue), which consumes this repository
as a build source. The host (novox/mesh-host) applies the declarations the control plane emits.
Neither is here.
What a module is, and is not
A module is one thing the mesh can run, named once, described completely by its manifest. A
manifest names its image (pinned by digest), the resources the host owns for it (directories,
files, the container, the private network it joins), what it requires from a provider and what
it provides to consumers, and the sealed secrets it needs filled on the machine.
- Core mesh components are not modules. The node host, the foundation, the control-plane
contexts and the surfaces are the mesh itself; they ship as their own repositories
(
mesh-host,mesh-foundation,mesh-controller,mesh-surfaces,mesh-sdk), not from here. - Standalone applications are not here either. A larger application lives in its own repository with its manifest at the root, registered with the mesh as a build source (novox/hq ADR 0010). This repository holds the modules the mesh maintains as its shared catalogue; an application the mesh merely hosts keeps its manifest beside its own code.
So there is one home for the catalogue the mesh owns, and every application that runs on the mesh rather than being of it carries its own — both reach the pipeline the same way, as a registered source.
Layout
modules/<name>.json one manifest per module
Flat, because the catalogue's shape carries no meaning: a module is found by its name and described by its manifest, and what relates two modules — a shared seat, a claim, a provider/consumer edge — is data inside the manifests, not a directory the tree encodes (novox/hq, the domain-grouping question closed in favour of seats, claims and tags).
The manifest contract
The shape a manifest must satisfy is owned by the control plane's catalogue engine and is what
validates a manifest before a machine ever sees it — a stray key, a consumer contributing the
wrong provision field, an image that nothing builds. That validation belongs with this
repository and is being re-homed here from mesh-controller; until it is, the pipeline is the
gate — it builds each module and refuses a manifest it cannot resolve.
Where the reasoning lives
Design and decisions are in novox/hq:
02-DECISIONS/0002-everything-is-a-module.md— one unit, no second mechanism02-DECISIONS/0010-applications-live-in-their-own-repository.md— why applications are not here02-DECISIONS/0030-the-repository-structure.md— the repositories, and the open tier-4 question this repository answers03-DESIGN/00-as-is/10-module-catalogue.md— the catalogue's shape, and what it records