web-portal VS flood

I am the creator of Web Portal which is a web dashboard. It has a plugin system and is written in python, so should be easy to expand.

github.com/enchant97/web-portal

Web-Portal is a web app written in Python using Quart, that aims to provide an easy and fast way to manage the links to all of your web services. It has been designed to run through docker and it is recommended to put it behind a proxy like Nginx for custom routing and domain names.

Web Portal Lite is a web dashboard to manage a page of links. It offers a minimal feature set to the feature rich Web Portal. Designed for users who just want to create a fancy looking links page and not worry about the advanced features. Unlike Web Portal which features a full ui editor, this "lite" version uses a basic yaml file for configuration.

Here's the repository link: github.com/enchant97/web-portal. Theres also a lite version, that's still in development.

Web Portal

Web Portal V2 is now released. It has been completely re-written, providing much more functionality, while still using minimal resources. Image and more below.

Before I release V2 I would like some testers (for feedback as well as bugs) As limited people have tested V2, I have made it easier to try it out. There is now a demo instance available at: webportal.demo.enchantedcode.co.uk. Docs and such are available on the 'next' branch at: github.com/enchant97/web-portal/tree/next. Thanks for your time.

If you want to test it out you will need to ensure you are on the 'next' branch and you will need to build the docker image yourself. Any documentation is now also located in the docs folder. You can access the repository from here: https://github.com/enchant97/web-portal/tree/next. Thanks for your time.

Why bake libtransmission into the app instead of just using the transmission daemon's RPC?

What you've done actually makes it harder to use, because in order to configure any of transmission's settings (ports, connection/torrent connection limits, bandwith limits, etc) the user needs to dig around to find the transmission config folder and then manually edit JSON with a text editor - because your client doesn't expose any of transmissions numerous settings [1] to the user except for choosing the download folder.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use this instead of Flood [2] or even old Transmission Web Control [3]

1: https://github.com/transmission/transmission/blob/main/docs/...

1: https://github.com/jesec/flood

2: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control

Only one that I'm aware of is Flood: https://github.com/jesec/flood

If you haven't seen the https://flood.js.org project before. It has subjectively a nicer ui and works with qbittorent.

You can install alternate web UIs very easy. I’m a big fan of Flood, which is mobile friendly: https://flood.js.org/

One note: I lean heavily on an API to manage it so I'd love to continue using flood, I tested qbittorrent with it briefly and it didn't go well.

You mean a torrent client? I’m using rTorrent with Flood (the new jesec fork that’s actually active) and it works brilliantly on mobile

https://flood.js.org/ ?

If it's just the web ui you're worried about perhaps look into installing Flood & see if it helps? It's going to be a better web ui overall. (I've never needed to use it personally but it's been recommended in the pat)

qbitorrent-nox with flood-ui

Impressive. But I dont get why they would rebuild the web client when there are existing options like: https://github.com/jesec/flood