Skip to content
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 portName to Operator and Webhooks for Consistency #664

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ramasai1
Copy link

@ramasai1 ramasai1 commented Jul 24, 2024

The metricServer prometheus section in the KEDA chart provides a portName field which is the name of the port in both the deployment and the service monitor. This is not the case for the operator and admission webhooks. There's not much consistency in how the port name for the deployment is chosen vs how the service/pod monitor objects use said port.

This PR unifies the interface by allowing each component to define a portName and makes sure that this is the name of the HTTP port being exposed in the deployment + this is the port being used by the service/service monitor/pod monitor.

#647 mentions the same thing but I chose to take a different route.

This may cause a breaking change because of serviceMonitor.port not getting respected anymore.

Checklist

  • I have verified that my change is according to the deprecations & breaking changes policy
  • Commits are signed with Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO - learn more)
  • README is updated with new configuration values (if applicable) learn more
  • A PR is opened to update KEDA core (repo) (if applicable, ie. when deployment manifests are modified) -- NOT APPLICABLE.

Signed-off-by: Ramasai Venkatsitarambhaskar Tadepalli <[email protected]>
@ramasai1 ramasai1 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 24, 2024 03:34
@ramasai1
Copy link
Author

ramasai1 commented Aug 6, 2024

@JorTurFer could I please get a review here?

Copy link
Member

@zroubalik zroubalik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We shouldn't introduce breaking changes, can we support both approaches?

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.

2 participants