(helm/v2-alpha): disable cluster wide rbac resource creation

[Allex1]

Addresses #5504

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Allex1
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign camilamacedo86 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @Allex1!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @Allex1. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[camilamacedo86]

We have either :

## Helper RBAC roles for managing custom resources
##
rbacHelpers:
  # Install convenience admin/editor/viewer roles for CRDs
  enable: false

So, should we have rbac:
Then, insde helpers and default for example instead?

How that would work when the solution is scaffold with the namespaced flag and the RBAC are not cluster scopes? How the Helm Chart would be in this case?

[Allex1]

@camilamacedo86 I could reuse the rbacHelpers.enabled for the main clusterrole/crb if that's what you're asking. The problem right now is that you can only generate helm charts only for cluster admins.

[camilamacedo86]

I see I am think in a way to make it generic enough and address this need.
Could you give me 1 to 2 weeks? I will push that and you can help us to know if that is a good approach. Your collab is very required and welcome btw.

[camilamacedo86]

Here for example we have no cluster scope rules since this sample is namespaced scope.
See; https://book.kubebuilder.io/migration/namespace-scoped.html

[Allex1]

ok, that could be useful but what I'm trying to achieve is having generated helm charts templates for clickhouse-operator that can work for both cluster admins and name-spaced users.

[camilamacedo86]

Thanks for raising this — I think we need think through a few design questions before we decide:

a) What’s the best scaffolding approach to support both namespaced and cluster-scoped solutions?
b) We have RBAC helper, so what’s the cleanest way to model/parameterize them in values.yaml?
c) Does it actually make sense to expose this in values at all? Should this be a decision made by the consumer rather than the project authors?

[Allex1]

@camilamacedo86 to answer your questions:

a) I'm fine either way: we could reuse the rbacHelpers for the mai cr/crb or add a new key clusterScope
b) we can use the enabled as a catchall or do you prefer creating a sub key ?
c) Not sure I understand, I think we should keep it enabled by default in order to not create breaking changes, users can then choose to not deploy the cr/crb by setting the flag to false.