feat: Support extraLabels in Service#1176
Open
lib0xidium wants to merge 1 commit intohashicorp:mainfrom
Open
Conversation
|
|
lib0xidium
force-pushed
the
feat/add-extra-labels-to-service
branch
from
7286f1b to
3bb573c
Compare
lib0xidium
force-pushed
the
feat/add-extra-labels-to-service
branch
from
3bb573c to
adb4b75
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes
This PR adds support for a new
extraLabelsfield on the Vault server Service definition in the Helm chart. The goal is to let users attach additional Kubernetes labels to the Service object that exposes the Vault server. This came up as a requirement when using Teleport product to attach the labelteleport.dev/name: ...Currently, it is not possible to attach new labels
See: https://github.com/hashicorp/vault-helm/blob/main/templates/server-service.yaml#L13-L20
Overview:
server.service.extraLabelscan be defined in the chart’s values.yaml.extraLabelsfield.PCI review checklist
I have documented a clear reason for, and description of, the change I am making.
If applicable, I've documented a plan to revert these changes if they require more than reverting the pull request.
If applicable, I've documented the impact of any changes to security controls.
Examples of changes to security controls include using new access control methods, adding or removing logging pipelines, etc.