And it failed spectacularly.

We only needed a simple form, but we wanted to be fancy, so we used “nextcloud forms”.

The docker image automatically updated the install to nextcloud 30, but the forms app requires nextcloud 29 or lower. No warning whatsoever. It’s an official app, couldn’t they wait that it was ready for NC 30 before launching it? The newsletter boasts “NC hub 9 is the best thing after sliced bread” yet i don’t see any difference both in visual or performance compared to NC hub 2

Conclusion: we made our business to rely on nextcloud forms as a signup form, but the only reason we were using it was disabled who knows how many weeks ago.

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.meEnglish
    13·
    3 months ago

    Yep, and I’d guess there’s probably a huge component of “it must be as easy as possible” because the primary target is selfhosters that don’t really even want to learn how to set up Docker containers properly.

    The AIO Docker image is an abomination. The other ones are slightly more sane but they still fundamentally mix code and data in the same folder so it’s not trivial to just replace the app.

    In Docker, the auto updater should be completely neutered, it’s the wrong way to update the app.

    The packages in the Arch repo are legit saner than the Docker version.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      I had to learn how to mount subpaths for their terrible container, and god just the updater is mind boggling. And I have to store their code in a volume, because of course I have to, why would code and configuration ever need to be… configurable? I actually just tried to put their config.php into a ConfigMap just to try, and of course PHP doesn’t allow that - not that I blame PHP for it - but ffs it’s been years, it’s time to allow config to also come from a yaml or something.