Skip to content

feat(charts/dex): Add extraObjects #143

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

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

Conversation

bilyboy785
Copy link

Overview

This PR add the ability to include extraObjects. Array of extra K8s manifests to deploy

What this PR does / why we need it

Closes #3227

Special notes for your reviewer

Checklist

  • Change log updated in Chart.yaml (see the contributing guide for details)
  • Chart version bumped in Chart.yaml (see the contributing guide for details)
  • Documentation regenerated by running make docs

Signed-off-by: Martin Bouillaud <[email protected]>
@alexkleinfig
Copy link

Would be great :)

@vaboston
Copy link

+1

@achetronic
Copy link

achetronic commented Dec 6, 2024

Super needed feature :)

cc: @nabokihms

@TheRealNoob
Copy link

I opened another PR #132 on this a long time ago as well. I know I'm biased, but I like my solution more as it allows extraObjects to be a dictionary or array. Useful for defining multiple extraObjects from different values files, such as one encrypted and another not.

@sagikazarmark
Copy link
Member

@TheRealNoob do you have any references from the community how other charts solve this? I'd be inclined to follow the footsteps of others.

@TheRealNoob
Copy link

I've not run across any other charts currently allowing extraObjects to be a dictionary, only a list; let alone either. With that in mind I understand your point, but I see this as a feature add with zero risk.

@bilyboy785
Copy link
Author

bilyboy785 commented Mar 24, 2025

I based myself to Argo projects @TheRealNoob

@TheRealNoob
Copy link

I understand the stance you're making, and I've made it myself many a time. In this instance I'm stating that I believe my change to have no negative drawbacks for anybody using their values file in the way your PR works, while also adding a feature that I believe others (and myself) would find useful. If you believe anything in that statement to be incorrect please let me know. If that isn't the issue, is there some other reason why my PR is undesired (other than it being different)?

@skhtor
Copy link

skhtor commented Mar 24, 2025

I'm in favour of PR #132 over this.
I prefer being able to define extraObjects as a dict as it allows for yaml merging across multiple values files.

@achetronic
Copy link

Well, I have several examples for this:

Notifik (as a list)
App template (as a map)
Varnish (as a list)

Personally, i agree with @skhtor. Maps allow you to merge between files and it's easy to implement too, so they are more useful

@mbouillaud
Copy link

So ... any news on this ? I close this one and would be great to make something for #132, we need this ! @TheRealNoob

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.

Support for ExtraObjects like additionals secrets
8 participants