tetragon
tetragon copied to clipboard
cilium
Add nameOverride and fullnameOverride support to Tetragon Helm chart
Enhancement #2951
Description
This pull request adds support for nameOverride and fullnameOverride in the Tetragon Helm chart, addressing the enhancement request in issue #2951. This feature allows users to customize the names of Kubernetes resources deployed via Helm, improving flexibility and compatibility in diverse environments (e.g., when deploying multiple instances or following naming conventions).
The changes include:
- Addition of
nameOverrideandfullnameOverridefields tovalues.yaml. - Introduction of a new
tetragon.fullnamehelper in_helpers.tplto unify naming logic across templates. - Updates to all affected templates (DaemonSet, Deployment, ServiceAccount, etc.) to use the new helper instead of
.Release.Name. - Tested the changes using
helm templateto validate correct name rendering.
These changes are fully backward compatible: if nameOverride and fullnameOverride are not set, the chart behaves as before.
Use Case Example
A user deploying multiple instances of Tetragon (e.g., in different namespaces or clusters) can now avoid resource name collisions by customizing the full names of the Kubernetes objects. This is especially useful in CI/CD pipelines or large multi-tenant setups where naming conventions must be enforced.
Changelog
Added nameOverride and fullnameOverride support to the Tetragon Helm chart. Use these fields in values.yaml to customize resource names.
Deploy Preview for tetragon ready!
| Name | Link |
|---|---|
| Latest commit | 95a7785ee839bc7d05ca1f88d795ef0ba858c6f7 |
| Latest deploy log | https://app.netlify.com/projects/tetragon/deploys/682ef78b216b9000083204f0 |
| Deploy Preview | https://deploy-preview-3604--tetragon.netlify.app |
| Preview on mobile | Toggle QR Code...Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link. |
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.
![netlify[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/13473?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@tpapagian Could you please find some time to review my PR? It's been pending for a while, and your feedback would be greatly appreciated to move it forward. Thank you for your time and support!
@tpapagian Could you please find some time to review my PR? It's been pending for a while, and your feedback would be greatly appreciated to move it forward. Thank you for your time and support!
Hey, sorry missed that review. This PR looks good to me. Thanks!
Aside I'll be off for the next two weeks, so feel free to ping someone else if you want to merge this earlier
My bad! I accidentally created a wrong push and closed my PR! Can you remove this and I will create new PR? @mtardy
Can you remove this and I will create new PR? @mtardy
Hey, what would you like to remove? This PR seems to be closed already.
Can you remove this and I will create new PR? @mtardy
Hey, what would you like to remove? This PR seems to be closed already.
Yes it closed by my mistake :(
Can you remove this and I will create new PR? @mtardy
Hey, what would you like to remove? This PR seems to be closed already.
Yes it closed by my mistake :(
I think you might be able to reopen it if you push commit to the branch again
hey I don't understand your changes, are you using an LLM to generate those patches?
No I didn't. I was working on another PR for Tetragon and I think everything was messed up. Let me clean it up.
@mtardy
To be honest, I felt quite disheartened and lost some focus after seeing the assumption that I might have used an LLM to patch my code. I understand that the code might appear a bit messy or unexpected, but this is primarily due to the long time gap between opening this PR and today, which has led to a lack of proper focus on this particular fork. Given this, I prefer to either close this Pull Request or convert it to a DRAFT.
Thank you so much.
To be honest, I felt quite disheartened and lost some focus after seeing the assumption that I might have used an LLM to patch my code. I understand that the code might appear a bit messy or unexpected, but this is primarily due to the long time gap between opening this PR and today, which has led to a lack of proper focus on this particular fork. Given this, I prefer to either close this Pull Request or convert it to a DRAFT.
yeah sorry it's just that it happened in the past and because I saw some random changes I thought it was that again, sorry it was indelicate! The PR is helpful
This has been fixed by https://github.com/cilium/tetragon/pull/3864. Again I'm sorry I didn't want to demotivate you and hope you'll continue contributing to Tetragon, I'll be happy to review other patches :)!