Support for extra namespaces

[gilesknap]

@callumforrester and I have been discussing additional namespaces.

There are 3 ways this could be supported

• put a value in values.yaml
  • but this requires that all helm charts apply this to all resources which is not desirable
• add an out of band config file that ec tool reads and applies on the command line
  • this is doable but breaks the model that folders under /services are pure helm charts
• add a command line option to the ec deploy commands
  • this breaks the model that the repo contains all knowledge of the state of the beamline
  • it would also require the namespace parameter adding to all commands like 'attach' and 'ps' (this issue really applies to any mechanism that supports >1 namespace)

Since none of these are that great, we came back to the idea that a single namespace for a beamline makes the best sense. There is no particular isolation required between gda services and IOCs. There is a question of authZ but frankly this is just adding more managment for little benefit.

Leaving this as a ticket for discussion for now. @coretl - any thoughts?

[gilesknap]

If we do go with a single namespace, then we'll need to get the cloud team to rename one of the namespaces and delete the other + this does mean redoing the authorization - probably by merging the set of users with access (or just starting again)

[coretl]

I vote for merge the namespaces

[callumforrester]

I think merging namespaces is a good solution for now, but worth considering how we would support multiple in future if the requirement emerged.

Suggestions for merged namespace name:

• ixx-services
• ixx-svc
• ixx-ec

The third is my current favourite

[gilesknap]

ixx-ec sound good to me

[DiamondJoseph]

Moving the DAQ services will be one less step after we only need one SealedSecret per-beamline (cough @callumforrester cough). We haven't finished moving the beamlines over from the last change of namespace though, who is going to request from the cloud team?

[gilesknap]

@DiamondJoseph I think we should wait until we know we are ready for this and remove all the old namespaces to avoid compounding the confusion.

[gilesknap]

@callumforrester this is the issue that covers the thing you asked about in slack. It would be best in my view to make this a one-off blanket change across all beamline clusters (including bl45p) and delete all of the old namespaces.

[gilesknap]

OK we now have shared namespace ixx-beamline on all beamline clusters.

Closing.