-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
[grafana] Enhance Deployment Template Flexibility for Zero Replicas #2866
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
[grafana] Enhance Deployment Template Flexibility for Zero Replicas #2866
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ali Can YILDIZ <anotherglitchinthematrix@gmail.com>
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.
@anotherglitchinthematrix
Can you bump the version in Chart.yaml and sign DCO please?
Signed-off-by: MH <zanhsieh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MH <zanhsieh@gmail.com>
This issue seems to be resolved in the recent versions after merging of #3337 This PR was fixing the falsy evaluation of the - {{- if and (not .Values.autoscaling.enabled) (.Values.replicas) }}
+ {{- if and (not .Values.autoscaling.enabled) (hasKey .Values "replicas") }} The current conditional block eliminated that case. {{- if (not .Values.autoscaling.enabled) }} |
I've encountered an issue while attempting to deploy the Grafana chart with zero replicas. The problem arises from the replicas value being set to zero, which falsifies an if block in the deployment template, leading Kubernetes to default to a replication count of 1.
This pattern is not unique and is present in multiple deployment templates across the repository. The current implementation limits configuration options for manual intervention, restricting users from customizing the replication count as needed.
I suggest modifying this pattern in other deployment templates within the repository to improve consistency and provide users with greater flexibility in their configurations.
The current pattern undermines some configuration opportunities for manual intervention, hindering users from tailoring deployment settings according to their specific requirements.
Your feedback on these proposed changes is highly appreciated. Please share your thoughts on whether this modification aligns with our goals for configuration flexibility. Let's discuss the best approach to enhance the user experience in managing deployments.