waxen zephyr
It appears that when introspecting ports from a service created directly from a container, the ports exposed in the container image are not passed through to Ports()? This is different from the pre-0.9 behavior which did pass through exposed ports with, well ExposedPorts.
Regression: new service API doesn't honor ports exposed by image?
quiet roost
I was using Ports() on 0.9.1, I haven't tested to see if it broke on 0.9.2
waxen zephyr
Example snippet:
nginx := dag.
Container().
From("nginx").
AsService()
ports, _ := nginx.Ports(ctx)
fmt.Printf("There are %d exposed ports\n", len(ports))
There are 1 exposed ports (The nginx image exposes port 80 by default)There are 0 exposed ports
quiet roost
Example snippet:
```golang
nginx := dag.
Container().
From("nginx").
AsSe...
Yeah that's how I was using it. https://pkg.go.dev/dagger.io/dagger#Service.Ports
ah but it might not work with the default exposed ports 🤔 I was explicitly exposing ports
waxen zephyr
Yeah I'm specifically talking about ports exposed in the image
wanton umbra
Seems like a regression to me also. I recall using ExposedPorts in the past as well 🙏
grizzled steppe
Can someone open an issue somewhere for this? Looks like the regression is confirmed, just aware that discord is a bad place to track things.
wanton umbra
on it Justin
wanton umbra
btw, just realized it's not effectively a regression since ExposedPorts is still present in v0.9 and works the same as before.
I think Solomon is expecing to see the image ports in the Ports method of dagger.Service. Having said that, the godocs of both methods make that distinction explicit:
https://pkg.go.dev/dagger.io/dagger#Container.ExposedPorts
https://pkg.go.dev/dagger.io/dagger#Service.Ports
so not sure if something should be changed here since ExposedPorts still works as intended
waxen zephyr
Ah I missed that, thanks. In my case it doesn't help though, since in practice you find yourself passing the Service object around, so I don't actually have access to the underlying Container (and there may not be one)
So technically not an API regression, but definitely a functional regression
wanton umbra
👍 I'll put this in the issue. I posted my message before while writing it