Allow specifying flyte pod webhook deployment resources

[katrogan]

Why are the changes needed?

Various resources recommend setting resources and limits for k8s deployments, e.g: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2022/10/20/kubernetes-best-practice-how-to-correctly-set-resource-requests-and-limits/

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Optionally allows specifying flyte pod deployment resource requests and limits.

How was this patch tested?

In values.yaml

webhook:
...
  resources:
    limits:
      cpu: 200m
      ephemeral-storage: 100Mi
      memory: 200Mi
    requests:
      cpu: 10m
      ephemeral-storage: 50Mi
      memory: 100Mi

verified the rendered webhook deployment included

          ...
          securityContext:
            allowPrivilegeEscalation: false
            capabilities:
              drop: ["ALL"]
          resources:
            limits:
              cpu: 200m
              ephemeral-storage: 100Mi
              memory: 200Mi
            requests:
              cpu: 10m
              ephemeral-storage: 50Mi
              memory: 100Mi
          volumeMounts:
            - name: config-volume
              mountPath: /etc/flyte/config
              readOnly: true
            - name: webhook-certs
              mountPath: /etc/webhook/certs
              readOnly: true
          ...

Setup process

Screenshots

Check all the applicable boxes

• I updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

Docs link

[mhotan]

LGTM, we could add reasonable resources.requests but omit resources.limits. Requests defaults but are not immediately necessary. It may make more sense to have a single issue/PR set reasonable defaults missing for all workloads so folks can track what's changed more easily.

[mhotan]

nit: Not important in this case but we could also do the following.

{{- with .Values.webhook.resources }}
resources: {{- toYaml . | nindent 12 }}
{{- end }}

This is not really that important as it's just syntactic difference, only really benefits for more complex config. We can always update later.

[katrogan]

thanks @mhotan updated to address both your comments, although having a hard time reasoning about what sensible defaults would be here esp given the recent ephemeral storage incident. figure it might be safer to err on overprovisioning for now

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 58.97%. Comparing base (4a95abf) to head (3279ad5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4988   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   58.97%   58.97%           
=======================================
  Files         645      645           
  Lines       55562    55562           
=======================================
  Hits        32767    32767           
  Misses      20200    20200           
  Partials     2595     2595           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	58.97% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.