Environment variables documentation #1089
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the whole point of having searches instead of listing out a table was because the table will quickly become obsolete and gives people a false sense of knowledge. Please remove.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MukuFlash03 I wasn't complaining about the format (table versus list) in which the existing variables are listed. I think we should not list the variables at all. The list of variables will become obsolete as the code changes, and at this point, we are not signing up to keep it maintained.
As a concrete example, I just checked in e-mission/e-mission-server#980 so the list of push variables in this PR is already obsolete. This should either be autogenerated, or it should be removed entirely.
If included, then it won't be up-to-date if we update / remove variables and will need to update this everytime. Hence removing the specific names of environment variables.
|
Right, I did see the Push config changes and yes it would keep rendering the doc obsolete. I had this in mind when I removed the table. But in the flow of updating the documentation, I just missed the whole point and re-added it as a list. Removed references of individual variable names. Search results mentioned only now. |
| - Use this [search](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Ae-mission%2Fe-mission-server+%2F.environ.get%5C%28%5C%22%5BA-Z%5D%2F&type=code) to obtain usage of `Overpass, Nominatim, Geofabrik` environment variables in the [e-mission-server](https://github.com/e-mission/e-mission-server) repository. | ||
| - Use this [search](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Ae-mission%2Fe-mission-server+geofabrik&type=code) to view some variables that are set using GitHub secrets in the [e-mission-server](https://github.com/e-mission/e-mission-server) GitHub workflows. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is the difference between these two searches. the second seems to look for geofabrik, but you also list geofabrik in the first search.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With reference to Geofabrik, the 1st search lists GEOFABRIK_OVERPASS_KEY, GEOFABRIK_QUERY_URL.
In addition to these, the 2nd search also lists GFBK_KEY which is used as a suffix to GEOFABRIK_QUERY_URL in emission/integrationTests/docker-compose.yml.
This variable is set while running the docker compose file in a workflow file using a GitHub secret GEOFABRIK_API which is different from GEOFABRIK_OVERPASS_KEY.
This doesn't show up while searching for environ.get() since we are using it directly in the docker-compose file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm. I am not sure we need to list the secrets for GitHub workflows, given that we don't really want people to be working on forks. However, I guess it could be useful at some point. The problem, though, is that if we add another secret to the GH workflow, it won't show up with this search.
We have gone back and forth enough times on this that I think that I am not going to force this change. But I fully expect it to bitrot within the next 5 years, at which point we should remove it. Let's see if I am correct!
|
Squash-merging to avoid commit churn |
Creating a consolidated documentation for environment variables that are used across the repositories of OpenPATH repo.
Initially starting out with repositories involved in the Redesign changes (PR, Issue) -
e-mission-server, join-page, admin-dash, public-dash