Skip to content

Conversation

aceeric
Copy link

@aceeric aceeric commented Jun 29, 2025

What does it do ?

It's possible to run the webhook outside the cluster. See #5585.

Motivation

In my particular environment, I run the webhook outside the cluster and so the webhook sidecar is un-needed.

More

  • Yes, this PR title follows Conventional Commits
  • Yes, I added unit tests
  • Yes, I updated end user documentation accordingly

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign stevehipwell for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Jun 29, 2025

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 29, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @aceeric!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/external-dns 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/external-dns has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @aceeric. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jun 29, 2025
@szuecs
Copy link
Contributor

szuecs commented Jun 29, 2025

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 29, 2025
@mloiseleur
Copy link
Collaborator

At first glance, I do not see the interest to add an option for only one person in the world. But maybe I missed something.
I'm putting this PR on hold, waiting for the discussion on linked issue
/hold

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 29, 2025
@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

FYI this was discussed when the chart was first updated to support the sidecar and it was decided to to support this. I'll second the request to open an issue if you want to discuss this, for architectural changes we much prefer an issue over a PR for this. @mloiseleur correct me if I'm wrong but I think ExternalDNS does support this if you provide your own manifests?

@Raffo
Copy link
Contributor

Raffo commented Jun 30, 2025

I have no strong preferences here, will completely defer the decision on if we want to support his in helm.

@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

@mloiseleur what do you think?

@mloiseleur
Copy link
Collaborator

@stevehipwell This is a valid and interesting use case. It seems there are now two known users with this needs.

/hold cancel
/retitle feat(chart): optional sidecar on webhook

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 14, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot changed the title Allow the webhook sidecar to be optional in case the webhook is outside the cluster feat(chart): optional sidecar on webhook Jul 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@stevehipwell stevehipwell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure that provider.webhook.sidecar as a boolean is the best API design for this. Personally I think we should redesign the webhook API to look more like the following with the sidecar values moved under sidecar (and the old values deprecated).

provider:
  name:
  webhook:
    readTimeout:
    writeTimeout:
    url:
    sidecar:
      image:
        repository:
        tag:
        pullPolicy:

When in webhook mode, if the provider.webhook.url value is set then the --webhook-provider-url flag can be overridden otherwise the current sidecar logic can be applied.

@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Jul 15, 2025

@stevehipwell just to confirm - basically all of the keys under the current provider.webhook will indent under provider.webhook.sidecar (comments & defaults removed for clarity):

provider:
  name:
  webhook:
    url:
    readTimeout:
    writeTimeout:
    sidecar:
      image:
        repository:
        tag:
        pullPolicy:
      env:
      args:
      extraVolumeMounts:
      resources:
      securityContext:
      livenessProbe:
        etc...
      readinessProbe:
        etc...
      service:
        port:
      serviceMonitor:
        interval:
        scheme:
        tlsConfig:
        bearerTokenFile:
        scrapeTimeout:
        metricRelabelings:
        relabelings:

Just confirming before making the mod thanks.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 27, 2025
@aceeric aceeric force-pushed the optional-sidecar branch from a291f9c to e0fce4e Compare July 27, 2025 20:14
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 27, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 27, 2025
@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Jul 27, 2025

Folks - I've made the requested mods. (Re-based on master.) Also: I fixed the Helm schema generation as discussed in this issue.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 27, 2025
@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

@aceeric we need to keep the old values unless we want to make this a breaking change, I think we probably want to keep this as just a patch even if we release a breaking change for the next binary release.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 15, 2025
@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Aug 16, 2025

@stevehipwell Thank you. I think you're saying to revert the PR to the initial commit wherein the change was (essentially) non-breaking. E.g. values from:

provider:
  name: aws
  webhook:
    image:
      (etc.)

To:

provider:
  name: aws
  webhook:
    sidecar: true/false <------added
    image:
      (etc.)

Please confirm, thank you.

@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

@aceeric I'm saying the existing values need to be kept but deprecated, with the new pattern overriding the old.

@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Aug 18, 2025

@stevehipwell Thanks. Supporting both current and new values together will require the chart to handle four use cases. Even though one use case is still not supported the chart still needs to be able to differentiate among them.

# want sidecar? using which values?
1 Yes deprecated
2 Yes new
3 No deprecated (not supported - backward compatible)
4 No new

One way to do this is to introduce a new variable under the new sidecar variable:

provider:
  webhook:
    sidecar:
      enabled: true/false

The implementation then would be:

# want sidecar? using which values? Helm values
1 Yes deprecated provider.name=webhook && provider.webhook.sidecar=null
2 Yes new provider.name=webhook && provider.webhook.sidecar.enabled=true
3 No deprecated Not supported (backward compatible)
4 No new provider.name=webhook && provider.webhook.sidecar.enabled=false

In summary - out of the box the chart will prefer the new sidecar vars but the deprecated functionality can be enabled by setting the sidecar variable to null.

Please let me know your thoughts or recommend an alternate approach. Thanks again.

@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

@aceeric you should be able to use functions like coalesce & default to combine the new value with the deprecated value in a non-breaking way. This looks like a good case for writing unit tests.

@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Aug 19, 2025

@stevehipwell Thank you. Then the logic to include or exclude the sidecar container will be:

If webhook.sidecar.image.repository (new value) is null and webhook.image.repository (deprecated value) is null
  no sidecar
else
  sidecar with either new or deprecated values, with new having precedence

@stevehipwell
Copy link
Contributor

@aceeric I'd suggest adding a new provider.webhook.sidecar.enabled value defaulting to true to control if the webhook is in sidecar or external mode when the provider is set to webhook.

@aceeric
Copy link
Author

aceeric commented Aug 23, 2025

@stevehipwell giving it another go...

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
chart cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants