Skip to content

Conversation

rowansmithau
Copy link
Contributor

@rowansmithau rowansmithau commented Sep 29, 2025

Description

Fixes a regression added in #167 which implemented support for multiple agents by appending the agent id to the URI, however in a single agent environment it results in the agent id from the template apply (on upload to Coder from client) being injected, and when a workspace is later built using the template the agent id is no longer correct.

Resolves the error The workspace “<name>” does not have an agent with ID “<id>” being thrown by Jetbrains Gateway app upon attempting to open a Jetbrains app from within a Coder workspace.

When wishing to target a specific Coder Agent with the Jetbrains Gateway module one should use the agent_name variable in the module configuration to specify the desired agent name. This will append the agent name to the URI.

Type of Change

  • New module
  • Bug fix
  • Feature/enhancement
  • Documentation
  • Other

Module Information

Path: registry/coder/modules/jetbrains-gateway
New version: v1.2.4
Breaking change: [ ] Yes [x] No

Testing & Validation

  • Tests pass (bun test)
  • Code formatted (bun run fmt)
  • Changes tested locally

Related Issues

Reported by customer on Zendesk ticket 4391

@rowansmithau rowansmithau self-assigned this Sep 29, 2025
@rowansmithau rowansmithau added the version:patch Add to PRs requiring a patch version upgrade label Sep 29, 2025
@rowansmithau rowansmithau marked this pull request as ready for review September 29, 2025 05:14
@rowansmithau rowansmithau changed the title chore: fix for jetbrains gateway chore: fix for jetbrains gateway agent_id issue Sep 29, 2025
Copy link
Member

@code-asher code-asher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to reiterate what I mentioned in Slack, IMO we should remove the agent_id query param, it will never work, and replace it with agent, or in other words make this fix again: coder/modules@3878e66

Plus delete the (unused). Will be removed in a future version part of the name description.

Copy link
Member

@code-asher code-asher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for fixing and testing this so thoroughly!

@DevelopmentCats
Copy link
Contributor

DevelopmentCats commented Oct 2, 2025

@rowansmithau LGTM can you do a patch version bump on this again since it was updated to 1.2.3 in #440

@code-asher
Copy link
Member

code-asher commented Oct 2, 2025

Do we have a way to communicate potentially breaking changes in modules?

My guess is, even though this is technically a breaking change, it should never have worked for users anyway, so it may not be necessary to classify it as such, but if we do have a method for that (changelog or something), we might as well throw a note in there.

@matifali
Copy link
Member

matifali commented Oct 3, 2025

@code-asher We can bump the major version if we are removing an input. Here we are just fixing something internally, so it's fine to do a patch here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
version:patch Add to PRs requiring a patch version upgrade
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants