Inconsistent NEOFS_NETWORK_DOMAIN parameter #12

New issue

Open

opened 2025-12-28 18:15:43 +00:00 by sami · 1 comment

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:15:43 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @roman-khimov on GitHub (Nov 14, 2023).

Current Behavior

NEOFS_NETWORK_DOMAIN is about some domain, previously we've used it as a generic top-level domain and workflow automatically added stX to it. Now it's a node address effectively which is OK (allows to use private nodes, for example), but it's somewhat misleading in its name and also missing any ability to specify port. It's also unobvious if it supports scheme specification (grpcs://, anyone?).

Expected Behavior

Have some NEOFS_NODE or NEOFS_ENDPOINT parameter that accepts a simple string that is used for RPC endpoint.

Possible Solution

Will require 0.2.0 since it's a breaking change (but we can think of some deprecation/compat in 0.1.3).

Originally created by @roman-khimov on GitHub (Nov 14, 2023). ## Current Behavior `NEOFS_NETWORK_DOMAIN` is about some domain, previously we've used it as a generic top-level domain and workflow automatically added stX to it. Now it's a node address effectively which is OK (allows to use private nodes, for example), but it's somewhat misleading in its name and also missing any ability to specify port. It's also unobvious if it supports scheme specification (`grpcs://`, anyone?). ## Expected Behavior Have some `NEOFS_NODE` or `NEOFS_ENDPOINT` parameter that accepts a simple string that is used for RPC endpoint. ## Possible Solution Will require 0.2.0 since it's a breaking change (but we can think of some deprecation/compat in 0.1.3).