docs: add jsonschema for values.yaml

[annekebr]

Adding a jsonschema allows user to fail early as the user configuration in the is validated at installation time already. For that reason, there has been added additional validation that couldn't be performed using jsonschema in the helm helper file. Moreover, as we now have our dear conny in artifacthub we can enhance our artifacthub page by adding a jsonschema as artifacthub parses the file and shows its content in a nice format.

Fixes #

Description

Checklist

• PR is rebased to/aimed at branch develop
• PR follows Contributing Guide
• Added tests (if necessary)
• Extended README/Documentation (if necessary)
• Adjusted versions of image and Helm chart in values.yaml and Chart.yaml (if necessary)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #458 (f5921ab) into develop (c85c4bb) will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #458      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    94.40%   94.24%   -0.16%     
===========================================
  Files           22       22              
  Lines         1125     1129       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits          1062     1064       +2     
- Misses          63       65       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
connaisseur/logging_wrapper.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
connaisseur/workload_object.py	98.24% <0.00%> (ø)
connaisseur/validators/cosign/cosign_validator.py	97.80% <0.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c85c4bb...f5921ab. Read the comment docs.

Implemented suggested changes

[Starkteetje]

remaining nit: it's not really a docs change, so probably commit msg should be changed, otherwise lgtm

[annekebr]

@Starkteetje yeah, I was a bit torn in choosing the commit msg. Would you prefer refactor? I don't think there is a 💯 fitting msg, do you?

[xopham]

@annekebr is this feature bound to be merged soon or will changes such as in #551 and #428 have to be added to this PR?

[xopham]

I have tried to violate any of the schema rules below and could not get an error for that via helm lint. Is that expected or something off?

[annekebr]

there was sth off - thanks!! It should work now (excited for the integration tests 👯 😁)

[xopham]

are those actually required? bc I believe at least some of them can be dropped and will have some type of defaults, isn't it?

[xopham]

but I am not sure which policy was decided upon

[annekebr]

no, you're right - these are not actually required, but we don't set any kind of default (but k8s does) and we once talked about it and decided to require these values for that reason, but rethinking it, I changed my mind and we should not require them if leaving them out does not yield a non-functional installation, what do you think?

[annekebr]

I removed the non-required values here and made the defaults explicit where I found defaults - if you don't like it I can change it back :)

[xopham]

I do have a few comments. Most notably, none of the things I do to violate the validator schemas seems to fail

[xopham]

but I am not sure which policy was decided upon