Extend troubleshooting section

[0anton]

Extend troubleshooting information about fix for Webhook failed with the status code 503 while updating location error.

Proposed Changes

This PR extends Troubleshooting section with the suggestion on how to fix Webhook failed with the status code 503 while updating location error caused by Cloudflare blocking legitimate Home Assistant Companion App traffic (apparently false positive on bot detection).

The solution builds up on the method suggested in
https://community.home-assistant.io/t/new-add-on-cloudflared/361637/420?u=0anton

Related Issues

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/new-add-on-cloudflared/361637/417?u=0anton

[brenner-tobias]

@0anton thanks a lot, this is great. We have to do some digging to check why this happens from time to time, but I think adding it that way for now makes sense.

Since this is a lot of text, I am considering to moving the "trouble shooting" section to its own doc. What do you think @AlecRust?

[AlecRust]

Yeah I think Troubleshooting probably warrants it's own doc now. Unrelated, but an FAQ doc might be worth considering too.

[elcajon]

Maybe we should move the extended documentation (like local vs remote managed tunnel docs) and troubleshooting section to a Github repository wiki?

[brenner-tobias]

Agreed @elcajon, I just activated the Wiki section of this repo. @AlecRust or @elcajon please feel free to have a go at the first pages, otherwise I will have a look over the weekend.

[brenner-tobias]

@0anton I also just added you as collaborator, so feel free to add the wiki pages as well ;-)

[0anton]

@brenner-tobias Thank you for trusting with the access! I appreciate that, as well as your and contributors work to create this excellent plug-in. Sharing this troubleshooting report is my humble attempt to pay back to the community.

As for wiki: currently it is only visible to me as a contributor, but not publicly available. Is it by intent (e.g. for the period of initial feel in)?

Regarding the wiki generally, it has one important drawback - it is won’t be possible to contribute to it with the PR, as I did. And PR is a nice, transparent, clean way to safely suggest changes to the project, and even more important: to discuss about the changes (as we do now).

On the other side I understand that it maybe not optimal to mix a very high risk code changes (and all needed measures to protect it quality) and just a documentation change, which is a low-risk thing.

Internally, I entirely use wiki for documentation to focus more on code-changing contributions. May be is also fine for public projects…

If we stay with wiki, then we shall make it public, right?

[brenner-tobias]

@0anton Thanks for your perspective. Yes, the wiki should and will be public as soon as we added the first pages. I agree that we will be lacking the PR functions, but since this is not the "core" documentation or any high-risk code, I think it will work well and this might even lower the barrier to edit something.

[brenner-tobias]

@0anton @AlecRust @elcajon I created the Wiki section and added everything from our Docs that should be there from my perspective.
It would be great if you could have a look and check if the structure makes sense and if I made any mistakes. Please feel free to directly edit accordingly. Let me know once you are happy and I will create a PR with the changes to the existing documentation.
Thanks a lot in advance.

[0anton]

Will do tonight or over the WE…

[brenner-tobias]

Closing this to continue the discussion in #296