-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 884
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
Add configuration options for Vault UI service #285
Conversation
lawliet89
commented
May 4, 2020
- Configure to select active Vault pod only
- Configure to not publish unready address
- Configure to select active Vault pod only - Configure to not publish unready address
templates/ui-service.yaml
Outdated
@@ -23,7 +18,10 @@ spec: | |||
app.kubernetes.io/name: {{ include "vault.name" . }} | |||
app.kubernetes.io/instance: {{ .Release.Name }} | |||
component: server | |||
publishNotReadyAddresses: true | |||
{{- if .Values.ui.activeVaultPodOnly }} |
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.
This is only true if in HA mode. I think we don't even need a configurable here. If it's HA mode, just set the selector criteria, else point to the single deployed pod.
Thoughts?
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.
I can add an additional condition to check that HA mode is on.
I think this should be configurable to handle other possible use cases like #326. What do you think? I could remove this option if you think otherwise.
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.
I think configurable is fine.
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.
I've added the check for HA in 956b101
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.
LGTM, thanks as always @lawliet89 !