Skip to content
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

[docs] Added all supported paramenters of WireGuard backend #297 #311

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 23, 2024

Conversation

pandafy
Copy link
Member

@pandafy pandafy commented Aug 22, 2024

Checklist

  • I have read the OpenWISP Contributing Guidelines.
  • I have manually tested the changes proposed in this pull request.
  • I have written new test cases for new code and/or updated existing tests for changes to existing code.
  • I have updated the documentation.

Reference to Existing Issue

Closes #297

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 22, 2024

Coverage Status

coverage: 99.497%. remained the same
when pulling 6f8d8bb on issues/297-wiregaurd-docs
into 9b2c214 on master.

@@ -103,6 +103,20 @@ key name type default allowed values
underscores
``port`` integer ``51820`` integers
``private_key`` string base64-encoded private key
``dns`` list ``[]`` list of strings containing DNS servers
``mtu`` integer ``1280`` MTU set on the interface
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would change the description here to just "interface MTU".

I was confused by the default value here because I remember the default MTU being 1420, but on IPv6 is 1280.

I just realized this is not a great situation. I am thinking about the easiest acceptable solution here..

We could set the default to 1420 both here and in the schema, and add a help text (description property in the schema) which says: "Interface MTU, set to 1280 if using IPv6."

Alternatively, we could remove the default and state in the description to use 1420 or 1280 whether using ipv4 or ipv6, however, I using IPv4 is the norm, so the first solution is probably going to be the most comfortable for most users.

What do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the first solution more. I have made changes accordingly.

@nemesifier nemesifier merged commit 5d8edf4 into master Aug 23, 2024
8 checks passed
@nemesifier nemesifier deleted the issues/297-wiregaurd-docs branch August 23, 2024 14:50
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] Wireguard backend docs does not include all parameters
3 participants