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
This is not a question about how to use the sail-operator
Bug Description
The CNI values are currently specified in IstioCNI.spec.values.cni, which looks odd, since we already know we're configuring CNI values. The same applies to ZTunnel (ZTunnel.spec.values.ztunnel).
Should we move the values one level up (to IstioCNI.spec.values and ZTunnel.spec.values), since it's clear that those values are for CNI/ZTunnel?
For Istio, things are a bit different, since we don't have Istio.spec.values.istio, but Istio.spec.values.pilot (and others), but it might make sense to move these values up also. In all three cases, the charts already do use this structure.
Operator Version
0.1.0
Link to Gist with Logs
No response
Additional Information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is this the right place to submit this?
Bug Description
The CNI values are currently specified in
IstioCNI.spec.values.cni
, which looks odd, since we already know we're configuring CNI values. The same applies to ZTunnel (ZTunnel.spec.values.ztunnel
).Should we move the values one level up (to
IstioCNI.spec.values
andZTunnel.spec.values
), since it's clear that those values are for CNI/ZTunnel?For Istio, things are a bit different, since we don't have
Istio.spec.values.istio
, butIstio.spec.values.pilot
(and others), but it might make sense to move these values up also. In all three cases, the charts already do use this structure.Operator Version
0.1.0
Link to Gist with Logs
No response
Additional Information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: