Openshift fix

[pflaeging]

After this small fix connaisseur runs as a normal helm deployment inside OKD / OpenShift 4 (tested with OKd 4.7).

Only set the value: openshift: true in your value.yaml file.

Reason

Openshift and OKD are using secure container by default (randomized user and group execution). So we have to disable the fixed user and group setting. This let OpenShift decide ;-)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #288 (d3da420) into develop (c348daa) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #288   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    96.65%   96.65%           
========================================
  Files           22       22           
  Lines         1077     1077           
========================================
  Hits          1041     1041           
  Misses          36       36           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c348daa...d3da420. Read the comment docs.

[xopham]

Thanks for contributing @pflaeging ! You are pointing out an important compatibility issue with the secure defaults.

I think your last sentence almost nails it: we should just let the user decide ;-)
I'd propose to simply expose the whole security context and annotation (comment the annotation and make a note for k8s <v1.18) via helm/values.yaml under deployment. before resources. Would that work for you?

Also:

• changed the base branch to develop (merged to master for releases)
• we should rename the commit for semantic commits, maybe feat: expose security context and annotations in values.yaml
• have you tested on Openshift / OKD? We should add a note in the docs then.

Let me know if I should support!

[pflaeging]

Thanks for contributing @pflaeging ! You are pointing out an important compatibility issue with the secure defaults.

I think your last sentence almost nails it: we should just let the user decide ;-)
I'd propose to simply expose the whole security context and annotation (comment the annotation and make a note for k8s <v1.18) via helm/values.yaml under deployment. before resources. Would that work for you?

Jepp, that would be OK for me.

Also:

• changed the base branch to develop (merged to master for releases)
• we should rename the commit for semantic commits, maybe feat: expose security context and annotations in values.yaml
• have you tested on Openshift / OKD? We should add a note in the docs then.

The patched version is running in an OpenShift 4.6 cluster and in an OKD 4.7 cluster without problems (I'm only checking specific namespaces!).

Let me know if I should support!

Thx ;-)

:peter