Document using the same port for the management server on Cloud Foundry

[milindsonawane]

I have deployed my spring boot application on PCF; all the actuator endpoints have been exposed. The actuator endpoints are configured as:

management.endpoint.health.show-details=always
management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=*
management.server.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT}

On hitting the /actuator/** or /actuator, the requests are redirected to / endpoint. This was verified by creating an endpoint in the controller. While the application worked perfectly on local environment, it failed on PCF (have not tried this in other env). If we add any actuator endpoint in a controller, it works smoothly. For example, I added /actuator/health is added in a controller and all the request for health endpoint were redirected to this endpoint within my controller.

The spring boot version is 2.0.5 and the spring cloud dependencies are managed under Finchley.SR1.

Here's the code link.

[philwebb]

According to the Cloud Foundry documentation CF-INSTANCE-PORT is the external port so I don't think it's possible to use it as a management port.

If you want to access actuator URLs using standard CF routes then try removing the management.server.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT} line from your properties file.

You should then be able to hit the actuator via https://myapp.cfapps.io/actuator/health.

[mbhave]

Since only a single port is routable through the go-router on CF (by default at least), we can document that management.server.port should be the same as server.port for a CF deployment.

[milindsonawane]

According to the Cloud Foundry documentation CF-INSTANCE-PORT is the external port so I don't think it's possible to use it as a management port.

If you want to access actuator URLs using standard CF routes then try removing the management.server.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT} line from your properties file.

You should then be able to hit the actuator via https://myapp.cfapps.io/actuator/health.

Okay, but are the requests supposed to be redirected to / on adding the property on cloudfoundry?

[mbhave]

That is not related to CloudFoundry. You have an empty @GetMapping which acts as the fallback.

I'm going to convert this to a documentation issue to document using the same port for the management server for a CF deployment.

If you have any more questions, please ask on StackOverflow or join us on Gitter.

[milindsonawane]

@philwebb Can I please request you to share the link of the documentation?

[milindsonawane]

That is not related to CloudFoundry. You have an empty @GetMapping which acts as the fallback.

I'm going to convert this to a documentation issue to document using the same port for the management server for a CF deployment.

If you have any more questions, please ask on StackOverflow or join us on Gitter.

@mbhave What might the issue be in this case? IMO, it should not fall back to an empty @GetMapping at all. The reason I tagged this as a Cloud Foundry issue is that I haven't been able to reproduce this issue elsewhere. I tried assigning server.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT} but result was still the same.

[wilkinsona]

@milindsonawane The documentation is here: https://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html. It's the first result (for me at least) when Googling for "CloudFoundry CF_INSTANCE_PORT".

[dilipmighty245]

@milindsonawane

use eureka.instance.metadata-map.management.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT}
instead of management.server.port=${CF_INSTANCE_PORT} , it will work.

[milindsonawane]

@dilipmighty245
But it won't always be a micro-service. Also, this property helps only is case you are using eureka. What if someone opts for consul or zookeeper?