#7949 `service` should be an optional field under `[[services]]`
PR #11698 open to fix this exact issue (created by reporter). Makes `service` field optional in service bindings, defaulting to worker name.
Wait for PR #11698 to be reviewed and merged, then close issue.
Analysis Report
Issue #7949 Review
Summary
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | service should be an optional field under [[services]] |
| State | OPEN |
| Created | 2025-01-28 |
| Updated | 2025-10-30 |
| Labels | bug |
| Reporter Version | wrangler 3.106.0 |
| Current Version | wrangler 4.60.0 |
Problem Description
The reporter (threepointone) identified two issues with self-referential WorkerEntrypoint bindings:
The
servicefield should be optional - When binding to an entrypoint in the same worker, theservicefield should default to the current worker name, but currently validation fails if it's omitted.Incorrect warning during
wrangler dev- A warning appears suggesting connection failed, even though the worker functions correctly.
Analysis
Comment History
- penalosa (2025-10-07) - Suggested closing the issue since self-referential bindings can now work using
ctx.exports. - threepointone (2025-10-08) - Clarified this is about config-level env bindings (still supported), and the request is specifically to make the
servicefield optional.
Related Fix Found
PR #11698 - "fix: Default service field in bindings to worker name if missing"
- Author: threepointone (same as issue reporter)
- State: OPEN (not yet merged)
- Created: 2025-12-18
- Description: Introduces logic to default the 'service' field in service bindings to the worker name when not explicitly provided. Includes tests.
- Explicitly fixes: Issue #7949
Recommendation
KEEP OPEN - There is an open PR (#11698) that directly addresses this issue. The issue should remain open until the PR is merged.
Reasoning
- The issue reports a valid feature request/bug about optional
servicefield - PR #11698 was created by the issue reporter specifically to fix this
- The PR is still open and awaiting merge
- Once PR #11698 is merged, this issue can be closed
Next Steps
- Wait for PR #11698 to be reviewed and merged
- Close this issue after the fix is released
Notes & Feedback (0)
No notes yet.