Skip to content

docs(cli): document foreground Docker server setup - #57233

Open
Jun516 wants to merge 3 commits into
anomalyco:devfrom
Jun516:container-server-docs
Open

Jun516 wants to merge 3 commits into
anomalyco:devfrom
Jun516:container-server-docs

Conversation

@Jun516

@Jun516 Jun516 commented Oct 20, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Issue for this PR

Closes #55558

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Refactor / code improvement
  • Documentation

What does this PR do?

Document a foreground Docker server with serve, an explicit container bind address, OPENCODE_PASSWORD, and persistent data/project mounts. Explain that service set password only configures the managed service. Use the current V2 image tag (2.0.32) and its standard /api/info check.

How did you verify your code works?

Cross-checked the current source and the v2.0.32 tag, and confirmed that the public Docker tag exists. Local Bash syntax and documentation links pass. On Linux with Node 24 / Bun 1.4.2, website bun typecheck, bun run check:generated, bun run build, and root bun run check all pass for the revised head in fork CI. The container itself has not been run.

AI assistance was used to prepare and check this documentation change.

Screenshots / recordings

N/A — documentation only.

Checklist

  • I have tested my changes locally
  • I have not included unrelated changes in this PR

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The following comment was made by an LLM, it may be inaccurate:

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The behaviour this describes matches the code. I checked it against the source instead of running it, since the change is docs-only. serve reads OPENCODE_PASSWORD and ignores the password saved by service set password. It only prints server password when the env var is unset. The basic-auth username is opencode, the data directory is /root/.local/share/opencode for the image's root user, and the image's entrypoint is opencode, so serve has to be passed.

Public API: unchanged (docs only).

The main problem: the example is built around the 2.0.0 image, but releases have moved well past it, and /api/info exists from at least v2.0.9 through the current v2.0.32 and dev. Pinning 2.0.0 sends readers to an old image with an older health check, and it adds caveats specific to that version in two places (see inline comments). Please use a current or placeholder version tag with the standard /api/info check, and drop the 2.0.0 caveats, or reduce them to a short note about older images.

Related: #45856

@Jun516

Jun516 commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Updated the example and Intro to the verified 2.0.32 V2 image, with /api/info as the main check. The 2.0.0 compatibility note now appears only once, at the end of the example. Removed the duplicate network-page caveat.

Website typecheck, generated-reference check, full build/link validation, and the root check pass again for 3e1c6ad in fork CI. The image tag was verified; the container itself was not run.

@Jun516

Jun516 commented Oct 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

The two earlier inline points on this PR are addressed in 3e1c6ad and their threads are now resolved. I also checked the remaining merge gates for this PR and the independent docs PR #57300:

  • Both PRs are mergeable without conflicts, and the standards/compliance checks pass.
  • The upstream check, test, and nix-eval workflow runs report action_required with zero jobs, so the unit, E2E and typecheck jobs have not run. For example: this PR's check run / test run, and #57300's check run / test run.
  • The dev ruleset requires unit (linux), unit (windows), e2e (linux), e2e (windows), and typecheck; those contexts are currently missing.

Could a maintainer approve the pending fork workflow runs so these required checks can execute? The fork verification linked in each PR is separate from these upstream gates.

@Jun516

Jun516 commented Oct 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Following up on the pending fork-CI approval for this PR and #57300. Both patches still apply cleanly to today's dev (24b5ed8), and the documentation link targets remain present. Each PR's check, test, and nix-eval still reports action_required with zero jobs, so the required unit/E2E/typecheck contexts have not run.

Could a maintainer approve the pending runs? Here are the check and test runs for this PR, and check and test for #57300. Existing review points are resolved; prior fork verification remains separate from these upstream gates.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

[docs] Container/server deployment: TUI entrypoint, rotating password, and a 404 health check

1 participant