Exosphere

Problem/Opportunity Statement Plan to host multiple gateways (each in their own containers). Need to give developer access to their own containers and images without visibility to other developers' containers/images. This seems to work fine with ... [More] podman, but docker, as setup, does not do such isolation. What would success / a fix look like? Users can only have access to their own containers. Ideally, this would be possible with groups instead of users, but I have not dug into podman or docker to see if this is possible. [Less]

I suspect we've already done approximately this via recent Jetstream2 engagements at the Gateways conference, so I'm closing this issue. @julianpistorius please re-open if you disagree.

It has been suggested that we offer to help with next Science Gateway webinar for Jetstream Cloud. Todo, make contact with someone at Science Gateway Community Institute (https://sciencegateways.org), perhaps via our contacts at Jetstream Cloud. Find out how we can help.

This issue is sorta mostly fixed. Suggestion, we close it and create new issues for anything left that we should do.

Thanks, Cmart! but I think it's nice that the ports tokenize when you choose a preset I like that too.

👍 Great, will do.

🙏 Thanks for doing a preliminary review, @cmart. Code structure notes & change summary is spot on. In a new security group, clicking "Add Rule" currently adds a maximally-permissive ingress rule. Consider instead taking someone directly to the ... [More] rule editor? 👍 Happy to. One possible tweak is to make the Create Firewall Ruleset button not-primary until someone clicks the Done button. ☑️ I like this suggestion. consider not showing the new rule in the (group-specific, not consolidated) list of rules until someone clicks "Done" 📝 I'm going to leave this as an open point until a little later because it impacts how the form handles multiple rules. I think some UI which would resolve this is to replace the row with the rule form in the table. Perhaps "Incoming" and "outgoing"? 📑 This sounds good to me. or maybe have a simpler form option that says "I just want to expose port X"? 📝 It will be nice to try something like this, maybe combined with the chip ports you mentioned in the issue. (Keeping this for the future also makes sense to me as it'll avoid trying to build an extra layer of presets now.) When exposing a single port, it may be unintuitive to type it twice (starting port and ending port). 💯 I think a port any/single/range dropdown is a good way to make this more intuitive. Much appreciated, @cmart! I'll continue in this direction & incorporate your feedback. [Less]

Overview Complementary work for !984. Depending on their remote types, Security Group Rules can take remote IP prefixes as a parameter. The remote IP prefix is a subnet prefix in CIDR notation. This adds helpers to: Check whether a CIDR is valid. ... [More] Expand IPv6 addresses from their compact form to full form e.g. 2001:db8::1 -> 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001. How to Test Review the test cases in Tests.elm. Run npm run test. [Less]

Overview Setup of RHEL-based instances was taking a very long time / timing out. @djhavert narrowed this down to the tasks that install VirtualGL and TurboVNC server. I tried pausing playbook execution just prior to these tasks, and running the ... [More] equivalent dnf commands in a shell. I got many prompts to accept repository signing keys. This MR adds those keys prior to installing the packages. How to Test Create a RHEL-based instance, replacing the ansible-pull source in cloud-init user data with: --url "https://gitlab.com/cmart/exosphere.git" \ --checkout "troubleshoot-rhel-instance-setup" \ Screenshots N/A [Less]

@LordParsley would like preliminary review as this MR is already large and building momentum.