PR Review: Initialize Alloy Operator across all environments

Overall Assessment

This PR successfully deploys the Grafana Alloy Operator across all three environments. The implementation follows established patterns and is well-tested. However, there are a few areas for improvement.

Code Quality Issues

1. Inconsistent namespace configuration (mop-cloud)

The alloy_operator.jsonnet for mop-cloud uses a hardcoded namespace while mop-edge uses common.namespace:

• mop-cloud/alloy_operator.jsonnet:10 uses 'monitoring' (hardcoded)
• mop-edge/alloy_operator.jsonnet:10 uses common.namespace

Recommendation: Use common.namespace consistently or define environment-specific namespace in common.libsonnet. The hardcoded approach breaks the configuration abstraction pattern used elsewhere.

2. Version inconsistency across environments

Different environments use different operator versions:

• mop-edge: v0.3.9 (latest stable)
• mop-cloud: v0.2.2-beta.2 (beta version)
• mop-central: v0.3.9 (latest stable)

Using a beta version in mop-cloud while using stable versions elsewhere creates inconsistent feature availability, potential compatibility issues, and an unclear upgrade path.

Recommendation: Use the same operator version (v0.3.9) across all environments unless there's a documented reason for the version difference.

Security Considerations

3. RBAC and CRD deployment

The operator requires cluster-wide permissions (CRDs, ClusterRoles). Ensure:

• CRDs are properly validated before deployment
• RBAC permissions are reviewed (operator has significant cluster access)
• Webhook configurations are secured with proper TLS

Best Practices

4. Empty values blocks

All operator configurations have empty values blocks. Consider adding:

• Resource limits/requests for the operator pods
• Leader election settings if HA is needed
• Log level for debugging/production

5. Missing validation steps

The test plan could add:

• Validate manifests for mop-cloud: tk validate tanka/environments/mop-cloud
• Test operator functionality by deploying a sample Alloy CR
• Verify webhook functionality (if enabled)

Positive Aspects

1. Consistent file structure - New files follow the established pattern
2. Proper Jsonnet imports - All dependencies are correctly imported
3. Good PR documentation - Clear summary, changes, and verification steps
4. Charts vendored - Dependencies are properly vendored per environment
5. Code follows repository patterns - Uses tanka.helm.new() consistently

Recommended Actions

Critical:

• Fix namespace configuration in mop-cloud to use common.namespace
• Align operator versions across environments (recommend v0.3.9 for all)

Important:

• Add resource limits to operator configurations
• Clarify mop-central deployment status in PR description

Nice to have:

• Add operator configuration values (log level, leader election, etc.)
• Add validation for Alloy CR deployment as part of test plan

Summary

This PR successfully implements the Alloy Operator deployment with solid testing and documentation. The main concerns are version inconsistency and namespace configuration pattern deviation in mop-cloud. Once these are addressed, this will be ready to merge.