Skip to content

feat: Support for StatefulSets, DaemonSets and Headless Services - #620

Open
davidkim83 wants to merge 7 commits into
stakater:mainfrom
davidkim83:deployment-override
Open

feat: Support for StatefulSets, DaemonSets and Headless Services#620
davidkim83 wants to merge 7 commits into
stakater:mainfrom
davidkim83:deployment-override

Conversation

@davidkim83

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Changes

  • enhanced the deployment template to accommodate variations between Deployment/StatefulSet/DaemonSet
  • created a new template for headless Service to accompany StatefulSet
  • HPA and VPA now reflects the deployment.kind
  • added/edited test cases to cover the above changes
  • updated docs to increase scope of chart (no longer 'stateless-only')

Closes

#319

Remarks

  • The idea of changing the top attribute from deployment to workload was discarded as it is deemed too intrusive.

@davidkim83 davidkim83 changed the title Support for StatefulSets, DaemonSets and Headless Services feat: Support for StatefulSets, DaemonSets and Headless Services Aug 21, 2026
@rasheedamir

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for the PR @davidkim83

@aslafy-z what is your opinion on supporting statefulsets, daemonsets, etc. in this chart? the original idea with this chart has been for stateless applications only

@davidkim83

davidkim83 commented Aug 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@rasheedamir my pleasure!

Please check this comment where @aslafy-z already gave his opinion, but I won't stop you from reconfirming :)

FWIW, this chart already supports Jobs & CronJobs. It would gain so much potential from supporting other types of long-running workloads.

I had also thought of separate top-level attributes (such as statefulset: and daemonset:, but then the chart would no longer be application, but applications. I think it's good that the chart remains limited to deploying a singular workload, and not many.

Comment thread application/templates/headlessservice.yaml
Comment thread application/values.yaml Outdated
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants