Valid Options: AUTHN, AUTHZ, STATS
                enum:
                - UNSPECIFIED_PHASE
                - AUTHN
                - AUTHZ
                - STATS
                type: string
              pluginConfig:
                description: The configuration that will be passed on to the plugin.
                type: object

  # Default dirs are skipped independently of this option's value (see exclude-dirs-use-default).
  # "/" will be replaced by current OS file path separator to properly work on Windows.
  # Default: []
  exclude-dirs:
    - genfiles$
    - vendor$
  # Which files to exclude: they will be analyzed, but issues from them won't be reported.
  # There is no need to include all autogenerated files,
  # we confidently recognize autogenerated files.

defaults:
  # Name allows overriding the release name. Generally this should not be set
  name: ""
  # revision declares which revision this gateway is a part of
  revision: ""

  # Controls the spec.replicas setting for the Gateway deployment if set.
  # Otherwise defaults to Kubernetes Deployment default (1).
  replicaCount:

  kind: Deployment

  rbac:
    # If enabled, roles will be created to enable accessing certificates from Gateways. This is not needed

defaultConfig:
  proxyMetadata:
    # should be overridden by the command
    ISTIO_META_DNS_CAPTURE: "false"
    # should be overridden by the annotation on the WorkloadGroup
    PROXY_CONFIG_ANNOT_VALUE: "foo"
    # should be in the final cluster.env/mesh.yaml

                "message": "Assuming the original need was handled, this will be automatically closed now. But feel free to add more comments or create new issues or PRs."
              },
              "changes-requested": {
                "delay": 2628000,
                "message": "As this PR had requested changes to be applied but has been inactive for a while, it's now going to be closed. But if there's anyone interested, feel free to create a new PR."

## |:-------- ## | rootUser | rootUser | ## | rootPassword | rootPassword | ## ## All mentioned variables will be ignored in values file. ## .data.rootUser and .data.rootPassword are mandatory, ## others depend on enabled status of corresponding sections. existingSecret: "" ## Directory on the MinIO pof certsPath: "/etc/minio/certs/" configPathmc: "/etc/minio/mc/" ## Path where PV would be mounted on the MinIO Pod mountPath: "/export" ## Override the root directory which the minio server should serve...

## |:-------- ## | rootUser | rootUser | ## | rootPassword | rootPassword | ## ## All mentioned variables will be ignored in values file. ## .data.rootUser and .data.rootPassword are mandatory, ## others depend on enabled status of corresponding sections. existingSecret: "" ## Directory on the MinIO pof certsPath: "/etc/minio/certs/" configPathmc: "/etc/minio/mc/" ## Path where PV would be mounted on the MinIO Pod mountPath: "/export" ## Override the root directory which the minio server should serve...

    required: true
- type: textarea
  attributes:
    label: Rationale
    description: |
      Why is the counter important?
      For example, what new insights will it provide, and how will that information be used?
      If this is about updating existing counters, why is the change necessary?
  validations:
    required: true
- type: textarea
  attributes:
    label: Do the counters carry sensitive user information?

                  for IPv6 addresses.
                format: int32
                type: integer
              communities:
                description: The BGP communities to be associated with the announcement.
                  Each item can be a standard community of the form 1234:1234, a large
                  community of the form large:1234:1234:1234 or the name of an alias
                  defined in the Community CRD.

        Before new features get added to Guava, we really want to be sure that it's for a use case
        that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the real-world use case so the
        community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually the *best* way to address
        the real use case, or whether or not a different abstraction might be more appropriate.