Conversation
The serviceAccount values were changed to a (create/name), but the podspec was still expecting a flat string. This fix restores the correct serviceAccountName mapping.
Summary of ChangesHello @PhennyOpsta, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces a significant simplification to how Kubernetes ServiceAccounts are managed across the Helm charts. By refactoring the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the common chart and its dependencies, and refactors the service account handling. The main change is moving from a serviceAccount object with create and name fields to a simple serviceAccount string for the name. While this simplifies the configuration, it introduces a regression by removing the ability to use a pre-existing service account without the chart attempting to create it. My review includes suggestions to restore this flexibility by reverting to the object-based configuration, which is a more robust and common pattern in Helm charts. I've also pointed out a misleading description in the new schema.
| {{- if .Values.serviceAccount }} | ||
| --- | ||
| apiVersion: v1 | ||
| kind: ServiceAccount | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: {{ .Values.serviceAccount.name | default (include "onechart.fullname" .) }} | ||
| name: {{ .Values.serviceAccount }} | ||
| namespace: {{ .Release.Namespace }} | ||
| labels: | ||
| {{- include "onechart.labels" . | nindent 4 }} | ||
| {{- end }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This implementation forces the creation of a ServiceAccount if a name is provided, which prevents using an existing ServiceAccount without the chart trying to manage it. This is a regression from the previous, more flexible behavior. It's better to use a create flag to control creation explicitly, which is a common pattern in Helm charts.
{{- if .Values.serviceAccount.create -}}
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: {{ .Values.serviceAccount.name | default (include "onechart.fullname" .) }}
namespace: {{ .Release.Namespace }}
labels:
{{- include "onechart.labels" . | nindent 4 }}
{{- end }}
2 participants
No description provided.