baseUrl should not be hardcoded in Docker image

[marcinkoperski]

Please make baseUrl parameter configurable as environmental variable:
https://github.com/OS2iot/OS2IoT-frontend/blob/master/src/environments/environment.prod.ts

[Joiversen]

Thank you for contributing @marcinkoperski. We appreciate it!

I have added your issue to OS2iot's backlog in Jira, from where it will be handled.

[ramogens-OS2]

We're currently looking into a fix of this issue.

[bkd231]

Hi! Could you take a look at this as an alternative solution?

https://github.com/KMDopen/OS2IoT-frontend/commit/b466bbae27ea559643f6b1ba962ad96665a71375

We are loading a configuration from the config.json file from the assets/config folder. We can use the same docker image for each environment and just mount a different configuration.

[ramogens-OS2]

Hi @BKD-KMD

Thanks for contributing to the OS2iot community. Great to see that you have used time to solve the issue that your colleague (as far as I can tell) reported. However by doing it on your own branch without making a commit back to the master branch, we have used time and money on another solution. It would have been a great help for everybody, if you had made a pull request to the master branch :)

We'll look into what solution makes most sense and get back.

[bkd231]

Hi @ramogens! That was our intention, but we just weren't ready to raise a pull request before. Now, as we have checked that the change works and fulfills the need, we planned to clean up the code and create a pull request.. and we have realized that you are working on it too. Having two alternative solutions is not a bad thing. This creates a space for discussion on the potential solutions and helps with finding the best one.

let us know what is your opinion and if you consider our proposal as promising we will create a pull request and we will continue the detailed discussion there (if needed)

[ramogens-OS2]

Hi @BKD-KMD. I agree - two alternative solutions is not a bad thing. Good point. And happy to hear that you intended to make a pull request.

My concern as a "caretaker" of OS2iot is that we end up using our limited budget for bug fixing and minor feature requests on the wrong issues. So just a hope from me, that you and all the good people at KMD Open comment on issues you are working on, so I and the community know it. On the other hand I will be sure to do the same when ever we start looking into solutions to the current issues.

[ramogens-OS2]

Hi @bkdkmd

After looking into both solutions we have decided to go with the #52 as proposed by @MadsSvejstrup. The reasons for doing this is that

1. The way to configure the frontend and backend is now exactly the same
2. With that solution, we do not change how to access the configuration values in the code. It thus works exactly as any Angular developer would expect, whereas the other solution uses a custom solution which in our belief adds extra complexity to the project.