Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: Helm chart reconfiguration #408

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lxfontes
Copy link
Member

@lxfontes lxfontes commented Sep 2, 2024

Changing wadm and config positions in values.yaml

When bringing in wadm as a subchart, the resulting values.yaml stutters. Ex:

nats:
  config:
   ...

wadm:
  wadm:
    config:

Further example in wasmCloud/wasmCloud-contrib#19

Increasing release from 0.2.5 to 0.3.0 due to this config change.

Templating in nats.server

Allows dynamic values, helpful in automated installs. Example:

config:
  wadm:
   nats:
    server: "{{ .Release.Name }}"

Signed-off-by: Lucas Fontes <lucas@cosmonic.com>
@lxfontes lxfontes requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2024 15:06
Copy link
Member

@joonas joonas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd like to drop the wadm key from config entirely, adding that in this chart was a mistake in the first place, it really needs to be left up to the charts to that might include this chart as a subchart.

I think the ⚖️ here is that there are a bunch of examples out there (docs, other repos) that reference this current format in the helm values file they use to deploy wadm, which means that if we go ahead and drop the key, we'll want to make sure that all of those references are also updated with it.

The same would apply if we went ahead and renamed the key this way as well, but it's something to keep in mind as we publish this

Comment on lines +51 to +52
podSecurityContext:
{}
Copy link
Member

@joonas joonas Sep 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would you mind reverting this so it's in line with the rest of the map-based entries?

Or alternatively would you mind going ahead and changing the rest of the empty map entries to match this style?

I'm not sure which format should be preferred to be honest, though Helm defaults to podSecurityContext: {} over this

Comment on lines +66 to +67
resources:
{}
Copy link
Member

@joonas joonas Sep 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would you mind reverting this so it's in line with the rest of the map-based entries?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no problem. heads up this is literally the output from yaml linter

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair enough, it looks like it doesn't touch these values when they are grouped next to other values, so maybe it's worth pulling them up into a group above?

Strange behavior on the linter's part to be honest, but what can you do 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants