Kubeapps chart - Lint chart

[juan131]

Signed-off-by: juan131 juan@bitnami.com

Description of the change

• Change chart YAML(s) to make it follow Bitnami standards (and Helm Best Practices)
• Some utilities such as yamllint, kubeval or helm lint have been used to ensure there are no syntax errors on the chart's manifests (see Add hooks for use with yamllint and kubeval bitnami/charts#1452)

[absoludity]

Thanks Juan. From your description (and looking at some of the changes) this looks like a combination of a mechanical change and some additions. Just for next time, it'd be great to put the (large) mechanical change (ie. linting, formatting, but no actual change) in one diff - as it doesn't really require a review - with the actual content changes in a small, easy to read one.

On another note, do you think it would be worth (separately) updating the checks on a PR so that it fails if the yaml/helm lint produce any changes, stopping a PR from being merged?
Thanks for the im

[juan131]

From your description (and looking at some of the changes) this looks like a combination of a mechanical change and some additions.

Yes, it's a combination of "linting changes" and changes to standardise the manifests, so they're consistent with other Bitnami charts.

I can split the diff if you it's very confused for you to review it.

do you think it would be worth (separately) updating the checks on a PR so that it fails if the yaml/helm lint produce any changes, stopping a PR from being merged?

Yes, I think it can be a great addition. But let's wait until we merge on bitami/charts repo the "final" version of the scripts we want to use to test the charts.

[andresmgot]

Thanks for the changes

[andresmgot]

this comment is now a bit confusing (because its new place)

[juan131]

Do you mean this one?

  ## TLS parameters
  tls: {}
  #  ca:
  #  cert:
  #  key:
  #  verify: false

Or nesting the comments with the ones for other parameters (e.g. timeout, resources)?

[absoludity]

I can split the diff if you it's very confused for you to review it.

No no :) It's not worth the effort now, I just meant for next time (it's much closer to zero cost at the time). Thanks!