[bitnami/common] Allow handling of new secrets after initial installation

[cwrau]

Description of the change

This changes the handling of non-existing secrets that should be generated so they will be generated if failOnNew is true.

Benefits

This allows the user to add new secrets to a managed secret without having to specify it and letting this chart generate it.

Possible drawbacks

Not that I can think of.

Applicable issues

Non that I created, but we sometimes do https://github.com/teutonet/teutonet-helm-charts/blob/main/charts/base-cluster/templates/monitoring/kube-prometheus-stack/oauth-proxy-secret.yaml?plain=1#L14C204-L14C356 to work around this problem.

Additional information

Checklist

• Chart version bumped in Chart.yaml according to semver. This is not necessary when the changes only affect README.md files.
• Variables are documented in the values.yaml and added to the README.md using readme-generator-for-helm
• Title of the pull request follows this pattern [bitnami/<name_of_the_chart>] Descriptive title
• All commits signed off and in agreement of Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO)

[juan131]

Hi @cwrau

I'm sorry but the changes view that GH offers it's not the best in this case and I'm unable to fully understand the changes... Could you do a quick summary of the behavior before & after your changes? Thanks in advance.

[cwrau]

Hi @cwrau

I'm sorry but the changes view that GH offers it's not the best in this case and I'm unable to fully understand the changes... Could you do a quick summary of the behavior before & after your changes? Thanks in advance.

Currently, when you add a secret to be generated after the chart was initially installed, the upgrade fails saying that the value has to be supplied, even if failOnNew is false. To be honest, I don't know what that flag is for, even when I happened to have a scenario where the corresponding logic hit, it would result in an empty secret, which is not desirable.

This changes this logic in the case of failOnNew, to not fail when a secret get's added.

[juan131]

Thanks for providing the details! I've been reviewing the changes and it seems your approach is more robust and streamlined.

In any case, I'll ask for a second review before approving it.

[javsalgar]

Is this issue related with this change? #28770