File permission flags are being lost when uploaded to volume through Filebrowser
I am trying to upload some files that my Browserless image needs to access to a volume via Filebrowser, but I am running into issues. They need 755 permissions and I think that when I upload them to the volume with Filebrowser, its losing that (I've modified these on my computer before uploading).
I tried modifying the permissions through the start command but it got stuck on "deploying".
110 Replies
it got stuck on deploying either because railway's ongoing issue or your start command was wrong and filebrowser never started
my start command was
chmod 755 /usr/src/app/chrome-extensions/chrome-extension
(I forgot to mention that after i uploaded the folder to the volume, i disconnected it and reconnected it to the browserless instance at /usr/src/app/chrome-extensions)
The big picture issue is getting the files onto that volume with the correct permission flags
I was able to make a custom start command with ls -l dir in front of teh real start command to see the permissions, and they were in fact unchanged (correct). I'm now trying to find what the issue is.what is the actual error you are getting though
I have a chrome extension that i am trying to use with a Browserless puppeteer instance. It is working when I run it locally using chrome on my laptop with the extension. It is also working when i use browserless with the extension added on a Browserless docker image. It isn't working when I pushed it to railway and have teh extension loaded onto the volume.
im not receiving a specific error, the extension just isnt working. Previous issues ive run into that have had this same result is the extension not having
drwxr-xr-x permissions, however i've confirmed that it has this on the volume.are you aware the template deploys browserless v1?
no i was not
so would the best solution be to deploy the browserless instance myself and try?
is there an advantage to sticking with v1?
they dropped support for some library so i feel like that makes the template limited in its use if i went with v2
are you running v2 locally?
yes
as opposed to another approach to hosting it.
is using v1 out of the question for you?
it is due to the fact that I cannot figure out how i would fix this issue of extensions not working. I want to try and isolate the problem as much as i can
use v1 locally and get extensions working?
that’s another option yes
but i would prefer to not limit myself to new features as many of them would be useful for my project and they’re only available on v2. if i have to find workarounds that’s also fine
have you taken a look at repo that browserless deploys from?
yes and that’s what i’m gonna try and deploy
thats already what is deploying