Skip to content

fix helm manifests to support 2.16 jaeger configs#841

Open
DaedalusG wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
wg/plat/jaeger-2.16
Open

fix helm manifests to support 2.16 jaeger configs#841
DaedalusG wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
wg/plat/jaeger-2.16

Conversation

@DaedalusG
Copy link
Contributor

@DaedalusG DaedalusG commented Mar 18, 2026

closes PLAT-485

Update manifests to support 2.16 jaeger configurations style

This follows changes to the sourcegraph jaeger base image https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/pull/10912

Test plan

See testing from original PR, this version of the charts was tested via kind

Tested by generating a template of the jaeger deployment and running

helm unittest charts/sourcegraph -f 'tests/otelCollectorJaeger_test.yaml' -f 'tests/otelAgentHostPort_test.yaml' 2>&1

@DaedalusG DaedalusG requested a review from a team March 18, 2026 04:53
Copy link
Member

@michaellzc michaellzc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we update the CHANGELOG to indicate this is a breaking change?

also might want to do a changelog post in sg/sg as well

@michaellzc
Copy link
Member

also CI is complaining about outdated dodcs

@DaedalusG DaedalusG requested a review from loujar March 18, 2026 23:37
@DaedalusG
Copy link
Contributor Author

can we update the CHANGELOG to indicate this is a breaking change?

also might want to do a changelog post in sg/sg as well

@michaellzc did you mean the changelog in this repo, or the changelog product on main? The changelog in here isn't really that robust in its release tracking

@DaedalusG DaedalusG requested review from a team and michaellzc March 19, 2026 00:47
@michaellzc
Copy link
Member

can we update the CHANGELOG to indicate this is a breaking change?
also might want to do a changelog post in sg/sg as well

@michaellzc did you mean the changelog in this repo, or the changelog product on main? The changelog in here isn't really that robust in its release tracking

I was thinking both, but you're right. let's just do sg/sg.

Copy link
Contributor

@Chickensoupwithrice Chickensoupwithrice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

other than marking as breaking change, this seems good

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.

3 participants