Your question Version: v0.16.10 Summary: Configuring Stalwart declaratively is currently a painful and unreliable experience. This is both a question about whether a better path exists, and feedback on the design. Core issues: Singleton coupling — objects like Certificate and Domain are refere…

The existing documentation directly addresses all three of your pain points. Here’s a summary of what’s actually supported and how to fix your specific plan: 1. objectIsLinked on destroy — ordering fix The docs explain a common pitfall that matches your situation exactly: writing destroy operatio…

i tried apply this plan, but: {"@type":"update","object":"SystemSettings","value":{"defaultDomainId":null,"defaultCertificateId":null}} {"@type":"destroy","object":"Domain","value":{"name":"..."}} {"@type":"destroy","object":"Certificate"} { "@type": "create", "object": "Certific…

Domains are management objects, not settings, they should not be treated as idempotent objects. You should not create a plan that deletes domains as these are referenced by multiple other objects such as Accounts, DKIM keys, etc. Creating the default domain should only be done once during the initia…

Declarative and idempotent configuration management without web UI

Questions

jaam8 June 24, 2026, 2:32pm 7

Please, read my reply on the other topic - I’ve shared my experience there in more detail: Idempotent apply of non-singleton objects - #8 by jaam8

Topic		Replies	Views
Recommended idempotent pattern for apply plans given non-nullable singleton references? Questions	9	119	June 25, 2026
Idempotent apply of non-singleton objects Questions	9	44	June 24, 2026
I have this script, but it doesn't work with stalwart 0.16.6 - Questions	1	40	May 30, 2026
Wizard-skip via CLI-only deploy Questions	1	11	May 27, 2026
Allow using IP and http for admin webui Issues	3	43	June 15, 2026

Declarative and idempotent configuration management without web UI

Related topics