Support multiple route pairs in docker labels

[umputun]

re: #76

In some cases, one container may expose multiple endpoints, for example, public API and some admin API. They can be on different ports and the goal is to allow such functionality to be defined with docker provider (labels?)

I can think of two ways to implement it:

• add numeric suffix to reproxy.*.N, i.e. reproxy.server.1=example.com, reproxy.dest.1=blah and so on. This may increase the number of labels and could be ugly in extreme cases
• similar to the first approach but combine the rule in this style of static provider, i.e. reproxy.1=m.example.com,/api/(.*)./someplace/$1,/ping. This is harder to read but will minimize the number of labels

both approaches can be combined too, and the user can choose which one he likes better. The current labels should be supported too as we don't want to break compatibility for no good reason

if anyone has better ideas pls share

[umputun]

cc @avowkind

[avowkind]

Thanks for looking at this.
Here's an example that might illustrate.

• split the labels into multiple groups.
• indicate which port each group should use. or assume from the order of the port defs

version: '3.5'
services:
  computer-vision:
    image: pfr-computer-vision:latest
    ports:
      - 14000:14000 <-- port 1
      - 14001:14001  <-- port 2
    labels:
      reproxy.1.ping: '/api/v1/ping'
      reproxy.1.route: "(/api/v1)"
      reproxy.1.dest: "$scheme://$host:$port.1/$path"
      reproxy.1.enabled: true
      reproxy.2.ping: '/api/v2/ping'
      reproxy.2.route: "(/api/v2)"
      reproxy.2.port: 14001
      reproxy.2.dest: $$1
      reproxy.2.enabled: true 

[umputun]

yeah, this is the format I've implementing except for one thing - I don't see the need in reproxy.N.enabled because this label enables the container for discovery, not the particular route. So, the current reproxy.enabled should be sufficient.

The N should be in [0:9] range, i.e. reproxy.7.server, reproxy.0.port, and so on. Current labels back-compatible and treated internally as reproxy.0.*

Check out the :master image as you have a chance. I have not tested it on the real setups yet but covered with enough unit test, so hopefully, it will work as designed.

pls note - this is not limited to different ports only and reporxy.1.* and reproxy.2.* labels may have the same port or even the default one (the first exposed if nothing defined in reproxy.N.port). I have recently witnessed a complex config with a lot of custom routes mapped for a single container and the same port (service)

[umputun]

actually, I just deployed it with multi-routes to one of my boxes and it worked fine. This is the relevant part of the compose:

feed-master:
    image: umputun/feed-master:master
    container_name: feed-master
    hostname: feed-master
    restart: always
    logging: *default_logging
    labels:
      reproxy.server: feedmaster.umputun.com
      reproxy.route: '^/(.*)'
      reproxy.1.route: '^/echo/image.png$$'
      reproxy.1.dest: '/image/echo-msk'
      reproxy.2.route: '^/all-umputun/imgage.png$$'
      reproxy.2.dest: '/image/all-umputun'
      reproxy.3.route: '^/echo$$'
      reproxy.3.dest: '/rss/echo-msk'
      reproxy.4.route: '^/all-umputun$$'
      reproxy.4.dest: '/rss/all-umputun'

    environment:
      - MHOST
      - TELEGRAM_TOKEN=${TELEGRAM_TOKEN}
      - DEBUG=false
      - FM_DB=/srv/var/feed-master.bdb
      - FM_CONF=/srv/etc/fm.yml

[zorion79]

I'm still waiting for labels port (I'm use docker swarm) and I'll delete Traefik :-)

[umputun]

I'm still waiting for labels port (I'm use docker swarm) and I'll delete Traefik :-)

Not sure what is missing with the current reproxy.port, can you provide details?

[zorion79]

I'm still waiting for labels port (I'm use docker swarm) and I'll delete Traefik :-)

Not sure what is missing with the current reproxy.port, can you provide details?

Sorry. I'm didn't notice this before. I'll have to check this.
Reproxy could not found containers for one service on two docker swarm servers. I'm thought this may fix with the port.

[kuhytitusdlz]

hi @umputun , please add port/enabled to File provider description, it may be helplfull