Change Workbench default service.type and other service generation items #477
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains the following changes, following the changes made to RSPM by @atheriel in 2021 (PR here: #122) This change to RSPM was made over 2 years ago and went pretty smoothly, now bringing it to Workbench.
ClusterIP
service by default instead of aNodePort
.loadBalancerIP
andclusterIP
, which are commonly-used service features.NodePort
. Otherwise, this will generate server-side validation errors.service.nodePort
andservice.annotations
.Since the first of these is a breaking change, I bumped the minor version for the chart.
Moving to ClusterIP
ClusterIP
is the Kubernetes default, exposing the service in-cluster only. This is a secure, well-understood default. For external users, there are a few options:Ingress
. We support this already and it works withClusterIP
.LoadBalancer
. This can be expensive so it makes a poor default.NodePort
and some kind of external load balancing solution.It seems like the last route (which is the current default) is much more uncommon than the first two, so I'd advocate for this change.
In addition:
NodePorts
are a very limited cluster resource, so we should avoid consuming them if we can avoid it.NodePort
is a poor security choice, especially if we have users that don't understand the consequences.Testing
service.clusterIP
also takes effectservice.type: "NodePort"
service.annotations
for all types of services