-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
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
Added Annotations section to Deployment template #142
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
To make it possible to have an annotations section defined which we can fill with data. Right now it is static data and just filled with `checksum/config:` This makes it more flexible to give also other customized key/value pairs defined there.
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ spec: | |||
release: {{ .Release.Name }} | |||
annotations: | |||
checksum/config: {{ include (print $.Template.BasePath "/configmap.yaml") . | sha256sum }} | |||
{{- with .Values.annotations }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we call this podAnnotations
- since these are only applied to the pod-spec and not top-level deployment.
In addition could we provide defaults in values.yaml
to make it clear it's an option, someting like:
podAnnotations: { }
nodeSelector: {}
tolerations: []
affinity: {}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @nabadger, sorry for my late reply. Yes we could do that exactly as you described. So podAnnotations
is fine as well as the definition of `podAnnotations: { } in the value file.
@VF-mbrauer - just wondering if you saw my reply or not, and whether these changes are still required? Thanks |
I would personally like to see this merged in. I need annotations to allow connecting to hashicorp vault. |
Hi @nabadger, apologize for the late reply. I found also another way of implementation on our side via Admission Controller functionality, but I still see this feature as important as for users not implementing this that way I mentioned. Therefore this should be implemented the way we discussed already. Thanks. |
@VF-mbrauer would you be able to rename this to |
Hi @nabadger, yes of course. Feel free to amend for me and get it merged. Then we can finally close this thread. Thanks. |
@nabadger Any news here. Did you amend and merged that in the meantime? |
To make it possible to have an annotations section defined which we can fill with data. Right now it is static data and just filled with
checksum/config:
This makes it more flexible to give also other customized key/value pairs defined there.