[charts] add support for podLabels and podAnnotations to occm and cinder-csi-plugin charts

[roehlc]

What this PR does / why we need it:

• feat: add support for defining podLabels and podAnnotations in the openstack-cloud-controller-manager and cinder-csi-plugin charts
• fix: explain where commonAnnotations are applied in cinder-csi-plugin chart

This may be used to add custom labels and annotations to theses resources. In environments using vault-injector to add the OpenStack credentials to occm and the csi-plugin this is typically used to specify in which pods the secret should be injected. I'd rather not use already implemented commonAnnotations for this, as these will add the annotations not exclusively to the pods but also to the deployment, daemonset and podmonitor where they do not make any sense.

Which issue this PR fixes(if applicable):

• fixes -

Special notes for reviewers:

• please let me know if I chose the correct chart versions - I did not find any documentation about the conventions used by the charts in this repo. My interpretation was the following: the minor chart version is in sync with the appVersion which in turn is in sync with the minor k8s release

Release note:

[charts/occm] add support for podLabels and podAnnotations in helm chart
[charts/cinder-csi-plugin] add support for podLabels and podAnnotations in helm chart

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: roehlc (f299b4d, 044cc93, 279e27b, b7fdc05, d199ec6, 2b2fb1b, 428cb73, d6bc7f2)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @roehlc!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack 🎉. 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/cloud-provider-openstack 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 @roehlc. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

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/test-infra repository.

[jichenjc]

/ok-to-test
/easy-cla

[dulek]

Could we wrap all these into some template functions, so that we don't need to write whole with-toYaml-end? Also a bunch of remarks inline.

[roehlc]

Could we wrap all these into some template functions, so that we don't need to write whole with-toYaml-end? Also a bunch of remarks inline.

I added helper templates to remove the need to write "with-toYaml-end" and addressed the remarks inline.

@dulek Would you please take another look?

[dulek]

/lgtm

Leaving approval for someone more experienced with Helm.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[roehlc]

@dulek , @kayrus , @zetaab, @jichenjc
Sorry for pinging you again. Unfortunately the PR was closed when I failed to correctly rebase my branch. This also removed the lgtm labels.

Do any of you have bandwidth to take another look at this PR?

As described above I think I implemented all requested changes from the review.
I also added an explanation to the first comment, describing why I think this change might be useful.

[kayrus]

have you tested this PR in your env? I don't use this chart and it's hard to say whether everything works as expected.

[roehlc]

have you tested this PR in your env? I don't use this chart and it's hard to say whether everything works as expected.

Yes I tested these changes. We are using this in production since I opened this PR.
I wanted to contribute these changes, so we don't have to use our own fork anymore.

[kayrus]

/lgtm

[kayrus]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kayrus

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [kayrus]

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