Skip to content

#210 Provisioning (docs and TLS improvements) #218

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

HadesArchitect
Copy link
Owner

@HadesArchitect HadesArchitect commented Jul 9, 2025

image image image

Add Docker Compose setup with Grafana OSS and Cassandra 4, including
datasource provisioning configuration for the Cassandra plugin with
development-friendly settings and anonymous authentication enabled.
Add detailed quick start instructions including step-by-step setup process, service startup commands, and access information.
Uncomment GF_PLUGINS_ALLOW_LOADING_UNSIGNED_PLUGINS configuration to allow
Grafana to load the hadesarchitect-cassandra-datasource plugin without
signature verification in development environment.
Update Grafana image from 12.0.1 to 12.0.2 and add quotes around
environment variable values for consistency and proper YAML formatting.
…aths

Add new certificate input method allowing users to paste certificate content directly into secure fields instead of only using file paths. This provides more flexibility for certificate management in different deployment scenarios.

- Add useCertContent boolean flag to toggle between file paths and content input
- Implement prepareTLSCfgFromContent() function for content-based certificate loading
- Refactor prepareTLSCfg() to prepareTLSCfgFromPaths() for clarity
- Update UI to show textarea inputs when content mode is selected
- Add comprehensive test coverage for both certificate input methods
- Update provisioning documentation with examples for both approaches
- Store certificate content in secureJsonData fields for security
Copy link

gitguardian bot commented Jul 9, 2025

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
While these secrets were previously flagged, we no longer have a reference to the
specific commits where they were detected. Once a secret has been leaked into a git
repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.


🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

@HadesArchitect HadesArchitect requested a review from unflag July 9, 2025 12:24
@HadesArchitect
Copy link
Owner Author

@tnielens-centrica

@HadesArchitect
Copy link
Owner Author

The version 3.1.0 is to be released as soon as this one is tested and merged

</InlineFieldRow>
<InlineFieldRow>
<InlineField
label="Root Certificate Content"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Judging by the code, a private key is placed in this field, and root ca placed into another. It should be named properly along with others rootContent mentions.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, not sure I understand. :( Am I missing something?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This field called label="Root Certificate Content" and it is not a root cert field, it is a private key field. The field name is incorrect and has to be fixed. In the end there should be three fields necessary to configure TLS: Public Key(e.g. certificate), Private Key and Root CA.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh now I get it. It's not about content fields, it's about overall naming of the TLS fields, they are wrong since the beginning. Yes, I basically copy-pasted them from a demo, which had wrong naming.

Ok, I'll rename them for both content and path. 👍

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed. I decided to do only visuals (UI), because afraid changing internals may break backward compatibility. Might be refactored for 4.0

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. It shouldn't break anything, however. It is just a renaming.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants