You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I tried out the new 1.8.0 release of the chart. I found there is a backwards incompatible change introduced in #27420 that causes all extraVolumes and extraMounts to be added to all init and sidecars.
This causes issues for us when using subPath mounts causing folders to be wrongly created by init containers that have nothing to do with the volume.
What you think should happen instead
Can this opinionated change be at least opt-out, guarded by some value?
Something like:
mountAllExtraVolumes: true
We would like to keep using this chart as is without forking.
Can you please explain what is the exact problem you have and why it gets broken ? I think any decisions to change anything should be based on the assessment if this is a product problem or approach of yours that is the problem. There are good reason why volumes are mounted now (see the original PR) and adding options is often worse than opinionated decisions - maybe just you use the chart wrongly and it's better from the product point of view is you change it rather than add another option - especially that you would also need to explain consequences and maybe your case will have a variant when mounting volumes is still needed.
Can you please explain the problem you have in detail?
Official Helm Chart version
1.8.0 (latest released)
Apache Airflow version
2.5.1
Kubernetes Version
1.24.4
Helm Chart configuration
No response
Docker Image customizations
No response
What happened
I tried out the new 1.8.0 release of the chart. I found there is a backwards incompatible change introduced in
#27420 that causes all extraVolumes and extraMounts to be added to all init and sidecars.
This causes issues for us when using subPath mounts causing folders to be wrongly created by init containers that have nothing to do with the volume.
What you think should happen instead
Can this opinionated change be at least opt-out, guarded by some value?
Something like:
We would like to keep using this chart as is without forking.
How to reproduce
No response
Anything else
No response
Are you willing to submit PR?
Code of Conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: