2 Commits (457eeeeaefbb6ddcc83defc58bd091502bbf7710)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Claude	276f926d57	Add the update button, and give it a host-side agent that can actually update ... The panel had no way to update the installation, and could not have one on its own: it runs as www-data inside a container, and the update restarts that container. A button that shelled out would kill its own web server mid-response, and would need the application to hold host-level credentials — a far worse thing to own than an out-of-date checkout. So the button is a mailbox. The panel writes a request into the checkout; a systemd timer on the host, running as the service account, consumes it, runs deploy/update.sh and writes back what happened. The same timer answers the question the panel cannot answer alone — is there anything to update — which needs a git fetch, and therefore credentials the application does not have. The parts that were wrong before review, all of which would have shipped as a button that looks fine and does nothing: - The agent was only installed by install.sh, which the installed base never runs again. Every existing server would have shown the button permanently disabled. It has its own root entry point now, install.sh delegates to it, and update.sh says so when the unit is missing. - On a release-pinned server the checkout is detached, so it followed "origin/HEAD" and then ran an update that deliberately stays on the pinned tag: updates advertised, nothing applied. It now compares TAGS in release mode and passes the target release through. - On a branch other than main it advertised that branch's commits and then deployed main's, because update.sh defaults to main. - A request written while the agent was down was executed whenever the agent next started, days later. - A single status file meant the routine five-minute check overwrote a failed update with "idle" before anyone saw it. - An agent that had been stopped left the button enabled forever, because a status file written once counted as an agent. - The agent's error messages were German strings rendered into an English interface; it reports codes now and the panel translates them. Also: the add-address button in the console-access panel was as tall as the field plus its hint, because the hint was a sibling inside the flex row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-27 05:33:17 +02:00
nexxo	e9240c1324	feat(deploy): releases you can pin to, and a version that tells the truth ... VERSION at the repository root is the release number and the only place it is written down — a file rather than `git describe`, because a source archive, a shallow CI checkout and a container built without .git have no tags to describe. Cutting a release is editing that file and merging it; CI creates the annotated v<VERSION> tag once green, only on the commit that raised the number, and never moves it. Servers are pinned to these. Two modes, and the difference is the point. RELEASE=v1.0.0 pins a server to an immutable tag, checked out detached: it moves when someone decides it moves. BRANCH=main follows the edge, where CI tags a commit only after it is pushed. The mode is remembered, so re-running the updater on a pinned box does not quietly walk it back onto main. Going backwards is refused, by commit ancestry rather than by comparing version strings — a tag can be cut from anywhere, and only ancestry says whether history is going back. The schema has already moved forward by then, and the migrations needed to reverse it are not in the older checkout at all. What the console reports comes from a manifest written atomically after every step succeeded, never from live git: git says what the files are, not whether the deployment came up. So a failed update keeps reporting the version that is actually serving — including its version number, not the newer one the checkout has already moved to. A deployment pinned to the tag reads "1.0.0 (abc1234)"; anything else reads "1.0.0-dev (abc1234) · main", because every commit after the tag still carries VERSION=1.0.0 and is not that release. Reporting it as one is how a bug gets filed against the wrong code. Codex reviewed the design before it was written and the result six times after. Its findings, all real: the version had to come from the manifest too, not just the commit; branch names need JSON escaping or the manifest silently vanishes; a `case` glob does not anchor and accepted 1x.2y.3garbage; pinning to the commit a server already sits on skipped recording the mode, and then skipped detaching; a manifest that failed to write would never be repaired; an unparseable timestamp would 500 every admin page; and an empty tag list read as a connectivity failure. 466 tests green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-26 15:21:38 +02:00