Add links to published ports for containers

[sig-kill]

Describe the feature you would like to see

It would be cool if Dozzle could display the published ports of containers and link to them as well. Portainer has something similar in its "Published Ports" section of the Container view:

Describe how you would like to see this feature implemented

A good place to put this might be on the header section for each container, which already has the container name linked (but strangely does not do anything when I actually click on it?):

Something like (3000:3000, 1234:1234) next to the name with a list of ports I could click on. I found this feature to be very convenient on Portainer to avoid needing to bookmark a bunch of ports or go to the url every time.

Describe any alternatives you've considered

No response

[amir20]

The non-functional link is a bug. It should only appear as a link when another similar container is present. I fixed it at #3803.

Regarding this feature request, I like the idea but have concerns about its placement. There isn't much space at the very top, and I prefer to reserve that area for information that most users find useful. Personally, I wouldn't want it there since I rarely change exposed ports.

[amir20]

Perhaps it could be on the card when you hover the container name.

[sig-kill]

The hover card idea would work as well, but would it allow you to click on the links? That's the main convenience I'm looking for.

To clarify, I propose to put ports in between the container name and the memory graph. At least from my resolution (1440p), it seems like there is ample space at the very top:

I've only started setting up a bunch of self-hosted services within the past month so I admit I am not that knowledgeable on Docker in general, but from what I've seen, most Docker containers typically only have one port serving as a webui (which i would like to have quick-access to). I recognize the desire to only put important info at the top though.

The non-functional link is a bug. It should only appear as a link when another similar container is present. I fixed it at #3803.

Out of curiosity, what does this link to? If space is a concern, simply linking the container name itself to the web ui port is also an option. Though I guess you will also need to implement some way to choose which port exactly in the case that a container publishes multiple ports

[amir20]

The hover card idea would work as well, but would it allow you to click on the links? That's the main convenience I'm looking for.

UI would. But now that I know what you want, I think the bigger complication would be linking to the right IP. I am not sure how it would work. Say -p 3000:3000 was used to publish a port. Should it point to locahost:3000? That would only work locally. There is also swarm and other modes.

Is there a way to know which IP to use?

To clarify, I propose to put ports in between the container name and the memory graph. At least from my resolution (1440p), it seems like there is ample space at the very top

Yes that's true. Except horizontal space is limited. And for some services, like PiHole, it might need 5 or more export ports. How would those show? On mobile should be hidden? Also if there are multiple ones what happen when window gets smaller.

Out of curiosity, what does this link to?

If you have multiple deployment using Swarm, then you can go back to previous versions. See screenshot:

Overall, I like your idea. I am just not sure how it would be implemented with the right address.

[sig-kill]

Fair points with figuring out which URL to point to: I believe Portainer just adds the port to the existing address. For me, since I only use Portainer and Dozzle locally, this would be something like 192.168.1.<local_ip>:port, but if you were to access Portainer externally through a subdomain it'd be something like "portainer.my_domain.com:port" which will not work unless you've configured the container's access like that explicitly.

Maybe to simplify we can just discard the ports idea and just have a link to a user-configurable URL displayed next to the name: that way people can set up containers to point to a correct external link, or an internal link in the case of internal-only containers (which will obviously not work when accessing Dozzle externally, but in that case there would be no valid link anyway)

[amir20]

Fair points with figuring out which URL to point to: I believe Portainer just adds the port to the existing address. For me, since I only use Portainer and Dozzle locally, this would be something like 192.168.1.<local_ip>:port, but if you were to access Portainer externally through a subdomain it'd be something like "portainer.my_domain.com:port" which will not work unless you've configured the container's access like that explicitly.

It's even more complicated because Dozzle supports agents, swarm mode and k8s. So I wouldn't be able to know what IP to use in case of swarm because might be on a different node or agent running externally.

Maybe to simplify we can just discard the ports idea and just have a link to a user-configurable URL displayed next to the name: that way people can set up containers to point to a correct external link, or an internal link in the case of internal-only containers (which will obviously not work when accessing Dozzle externally, but in that case there would be no valid link anyway)

I have found that user-configured things are rarely used. Like <2%, which isn't even worth my time implementing it. Ideally, it would be something automatic that would just work.

One idea I had, (which is a little complicated and I won't have time to implement),

1. Use UI IP for standalone containers
2. Use agent IP for containers inside an agent
3. Use host IP from swarm nodes where possible.

I think this is a bit complicated. Do you think you can give it a try? Do you have the technical skills?

[sig-kill]

I unfortunately do not have the skills nor the free time needed to implement this, but I am happy to at least leave this idea here so maybe you or someone in the future can implement it if they feel it would be useful to them as well. Thanks for taking a look!

[amir20]

Sounds good. I'll move on to the discussion for now. If I find a good way to implement it, I'll give it a try.