Skip to content

[rollout-operator] Replace default webhooks.selfSignedCertSecretName with fullname#3990

Open
kimxogus wants to merge 4 commits intografana:mainfrom
kimxogus:feature/remove-default-secret-name
Open

[rollout-operator] Replace default webhooks.selfSignedCertSecretName with fullname#3990
kimxogus wants to merge 4 commits intografana:mainfrom
kimxogus:feature/remove-default-secret-name

Conversation

@kimxogus
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kimxogus kimxogus commented Nov 5, 2025

Certificate secret's default name certificate is too general name, so I made it chart's fullname to match with the other resources.

Changing cert secret name doesn't break existing installations. It will recreate rollout-operator pod and cert secret will be recreated as well.

…d use chart's fullname

Signed-off-by: tanner <tanner@dunamu.com>
@kimxogus kimxogus force-pushed the feature/remove-default-secret-name branch from 5074f2a to 2cb15fb Compare November 5, 2025 11:52
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dimitarvdimitrov dimitarvdimitrov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left a couple of small comments

Perhaps my major question would be if this change would require manual upgrade path. If i understand correctly, the rollout operator would just ignore the existing secret and create a new one. There will be an orphaned secret in the namespace, but that shouldn't cause problems. Did i get this right? (it may be worth including these details in the PR description, since we don't have a changelog)

Comment thread charts/rollout-operator/values.yaml Outdated
Comment thread charts/rollout-operator/templates/deployment.yaml Outdated
@tcp13equals2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I have double checked that we have the correct permissions for this certificate to be re-created.

This change looks to be safe, but could we just update the values.yaml and/or README/md.gotmpl with additional documentation explaining that the operator can safely update this value if need be.

Is there a specific issue that this generic name is causing? A conflict in the namespace perhaps?

@kimxogus kimxogus force-pushed the feature/remove-default-secret-name branch 3 times, most recently from a82ad34 to 4a7b3e1 Compare November 28, 2025 08:23
Signed-off-by: tanner <tanner@dunamu.com>
@kimxogus kimxogus force-pushed the feature/remove-default-secret-name branch from 4a7b3e1 to ad598a6 Compare November 28, 2025 08:25
@kimxogus
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@tcp13equals2 Sorry, I was too late. I've just applied suggested changes.

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.

4 participants