Conversation
| {{- toYaml . | nindent 4 }} | ||
| {{- end }} | ||
| spec: | ||
| {{- with $route.parentRefs }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I appreciate this naming over z2jh's current naming that references a gateway instead of parentRefs, considering if we should align z2jh with this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had that thought too! The current Z2JH values have already been released though, so it would either be a breaking change, or require more complicated logic to provide backwards compatibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I should have commented my reasoning here. This is based on having done a deployment with jupyterhub and prometheus/grafana, and I like the prometheus/grafana approach better, since it is a more straightforward passthrough of the specs.
Theirs do expose much more of the route to allow for other Gateway API versions, route types, rules, but I thought that was overkill for us for now, so this is a bit in between theirs and the one in z2jh.
example, migrate
to
tls is handled on the Gateway instead of the Route, so there is no substitute for the tls config within this chart, that becomes entirely out of scope for the chart.