bitnami
[bitnami/sonarqube] Add LDAPGroupRequest property
Description of the change
Adds support for passing the ldap.group.request property through an alternate method to extraProperties
Applicable issues
- fixes #8054
Checklist
- [x] Chart version bumped in
Chart.yamlaccording to semver. This is not necessary when the changes only affect README.md files. - [x] Variables are documented in the values.yaml and added to the
README.mdusing readme-generator-for-helm - [x] Title of the pull request follows this pattern [bitnami/<name_of_the_chart>] Descriptive title
- [x] All commits signed off and in agreement of Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO)
Examples like the one in #8054 imply that, being extraProperties encoded internally in a string, the ldap.group.request property could be complex enough to break the decoding of all that string, since it can have the same characters that the encoding separators and other special characters. So the best solution here is enabling a new value LDAPGroupRequest to pass ldap.group.request directly and avoid using it through extraProperties
I'm worried about adding this value which does not follow our charts standard. If more LDAP-related values are added, we will need to release a new major in the future in order to rename it.
We already have support for LDAP in other charts, see mariadb-galera,postgresql, airflow, grafana or rabbitmq, and @fmulero recently adapted all of them to have a standard structure.
To follow the standard used in other charts, LDAP-related values should be grouped under ldap.*, and should have additional values, such as ldap.enabled, ldap.uri, etc.
Sonarqube can be configured using env variables, so we would just need to map the ldap.* values to the env variables described at https://docs.sonarqube.org/latest/setup/environment-variables/
Alternatively, we could release a new version of the bitnami/sonarqube image setting the LDAP configuration in the properties file.
Yep, completely agree. If it is already a standardized solution IMO we should go for it. Leaving the PR as draft meanwhile implementing it. Thanks @migruiz4 !
