DM-50020: USDF Rapid Analysis updates for LSSTCam#4497
Conversation
57677fc to
25f99f1
Compare
fe6baa4 to
c2f1c00
Compare
94c355c to
e62089c
Compare
ef67eef to
194efeb
Compare
b86ac01 to
6c94562
Compare
8f321d6 to
a548ba2
Compare
defeb3a to
5a9b37d
Compare
422dc2d to
5a9b37d
Compare
14089a8 to
e1f0b15
Compare
611f9e9 to
e1f0b15
Compare
cbe5e1a to
1fe5352
Compare
e14b817 to
359c670
Compare
sebastian-aranda
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great! I just found an issue with the values descriptions automatic generation so you can take a look 🙏 (and a couple doubts just in case).
| configMountpoint: [] | ||
| # -- This section holds the information necessary to claim persistent volumes. | ||
| # If the section is used, each object listed can have the following attributes defined: | ||
| # _name_ (The name of the persistent volume and the configMap), | ||
| # _items_ (Files in the configmap to mount), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was a baffled by reading the README.md updates and seeing the configMountpoint and pvcMountpointClaim definitions/descriptions being swapped 😅 , it took me a bit to realize this definition was not properly positioned. Please swap lines 68 & 73 so the definitions are properly generated by the hooks 🙏 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh you're right, that is very confusing! I think I have it sorted out now.
| # This environment uses an ingress managed in a separate Kubernetes cluster, | ||
| # despite that configuration not being officially supported by Phalanx. | ||
| cert-manager: false | ||
| gafaelfawr: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this is an intentional change, but wanted to point it out just in case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gafaelfawr was never actually enabled; this has been set to false since we first started using this cluster.
| repository: ghcr.io/lsst-sitcom/rubintv_production | ||
| tag: tickets-DM-50534-w48 | ||
| pullPolicy: IfNotPresent | ||
| location: USDF |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other values.yaml have the siteTag parameter as well, I guess that's not required here? (it is used only by templates/deployment.yaml)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a look at siteTag and I don't see any reason to have both it and location. So I added a new commit that removes siteTag from deployment.yaml and from all the other values files, and I think it should all be fine? I looked at a diff of the generated yaml from helm with and without the change, and the only difference is the capitalization (which the python converts to lowercase anyways). I think this should all be safe, but does that seem right to you? Or I could make the change on a separate ticket.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
got it, sounds good 👍 .
359c670 to
556b7ba
Compare
556b7ba to
e40d04b
Compare
e40d04b to
39f1eb8
Compare
This has been a very-long-lived branch, and most of the work has already been merged elsewhere but this cleans up the remaining pieces: