Skip to content

Conversation

@pantierra
Copy link
Contributor

@pantierra pantierra commented Nov 17, 2025

This introduces Service Profile presets for common deployment scenarios:

  • profiles/core.yaml - Production-ready deployment with stable services only (STAC, Raster, Vector)
  • profiles/experimental.yaml - Full feature set including experimental components (Multidim, STAC Browser, Notifications, Knative, Monitoring)
  • profiles/local/k3s.yaml - k3s-specific overrides for local development (inherits from experimental)
  • profiles/local/minikube.yaml - Minikube-specific overrides for local development (inherits from experimental)
  • And some profiles documentation in profiles/README.md

What i have done? Reorganized local development values files into structured profiles directory:

  • Moved local-base-values.yaml to profiles/experimental.yaml
  • Moved local-k3s-values.yaml to profiles/local/k3s.yaml (now inherits from experimental)
  • Moved local-minikube-values.yaml to profiles/local/minikube.yaml (now inherits from experimental)
  • Updated deploy.sh script to use new profile paths

@pantierra pantierra changed the title Restructure values in service profiles. refactor: Restructure values in service profiles. Nov 17, 2025
@pantierra pantierra marked this pull request as ready for review November 17, 2025 11:52
Comment on lines +184 to +194
monitoring:
metricsServer:
enabled: false
prometheus:
enabled: false
prometheusAdapter:
enabled: false

observability:
grafana:
enabled: false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd maybe consider these 'production/core'?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pantierra pantierra Nov 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would prefer to keep the core.yaml rather conservatively small. But it probably makes sense to add a production.yaml version with them being enabled. Kind of a "what we would deploy for a partner usually". But maybe in another PR?

core.yaml should be more like the things we are confident they are stable. Potentially also give a different warning on these when there are breaking changes than on the others.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would maybe change the wording around it then as it mentions Production-ready deployment

Which yes, but I would say maybe stable

Fits the counterpart that is experimental

@pantierra pantierra self-assigned this Nov 17, 2025
@pantierra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks a lot for the review!

@pantierra pantierra merged commit ef171ab into main Nov 17, 2025
5 checks passed
@pantierra pantierra deleted the feature/profiles branch November 17, 2025 13:01
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.

3 participants