feat: add optional gRPC port to bifrost cluster deployment and service

[BearTS]

Summary

Adds optional gRPC port support to the Bifrost Helm chart, allowing the cluster to expose a gRPC endpoint when configured.

Changes

• Added a conditional gRPC container port (TCP) to the deployment template, rendered only when bifrost.cluster.grpc is defined in values
• Added a corresponding conditional gRPC service port to the service template, targeting the named grpc port

Type of change

• Bug fix
• Feature
• Refactor
• Documentation
• Chore/CI

Affected areas

• Core (Go)
• Transports (HTTP)
• Providers/Integrations
• Plugins
• UI (React)
• Docs

How to test

Set the following in your Helm values and confirm the deployment and service include the gRPC port:

bifrost:
  cluster:
    grpc:
      port: 50051

helm template ./helm-charts/bifrost | grep -A 4 grpc

Expected output should include the grpc port entry in both the deployment container ports and the service spec.

Breaking changes

• Yes
• No

Related issues

Security considerations

The gRPC port is only exposed when explicitly configured. No authentication or TLS is configured at the Helm chart level; ensure appropriate network policies or ingress controls are in place when enabling this port.

Checklist

• I read docs/contributing/README.md and followed the guidelines
• I added/updated tests where appropriate
• I updated documentation where needed
• I verified builds succeed (Go and UI)
• I verified the CI pipeline passes locally if applicable

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@BearTS has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 18 minutes and 12 seconds before requesting another review.

You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 930eec5b-36bb-498c-94dd-cd51b76e77c1

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8d84eb7 and 490e6ad.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml
• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR conditionally exposes a gRPC TCP port when bifrost.cluster.grpc is enabled: the Deployment's container ports gains a grpc entry using bifrost.cluster.grpc.port, and the Service's spec.ports gains a matching named grpc port mapping to targetPort: grpc.

Changes

gRPC Port Exposure

Layer / File(s)	Summary
gRPC Port Exposure helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml, helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml	Deployment adds conditional gRPC container port using bifrost.cluster.grpc.port. Service adds matching conditional gRPC port mapping that routes to the grpc named targetPort. Both gated on the bifrost.cluster.grpc enabled flag.

sequenceDiagram
  participant Client
  participant Service
  participant Pod
  Client->>Service: TCP gRPC request to Service 'grpc' port
  Service->>Pod: forwards to targetPort 'grpc' on Pod

Loading

---

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

---

I’m a rabbit in the charted land,
I nudged a grpc port with my hand,
When the flag is true, connections hum,
Services route and pods become,
A quiet tunnel for the tum-tum. 🐇✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: adding optional gRPC port support to Bifrost Helm chart deployment and service templates.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers all major template sections with sufficient detail. It includes Summary, Changes, Type of change, Affected areas, How to test, Breaking changes, Security considerations, and Checklist, though some checklist items are unmarked.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 05-20-chore_expose_grpc_service_port_if_mentioned

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[BearTS]

• chore: bump Bifrost Helm chart to 2.1.18 with feature flags, model catalog URL, and bug fixes #3623
• feat: add configurable pod and container security contexts to postgresql deployment #3694
• feat: support existingSecret for internal PostgreSQL auth in Bifrost Helm chart #3689
• fix: sort provider secrets and weaviate env vars alphabetically for deterministic Helm rendering #3621
• feat: add default password warnings for PostgreSQL and Redis in Helm chart NOTES.txt #3620
• fix: gate Weaviate PVC creation on persistence.enabled #3619
• fix: use REDISCLI_AUTH env var to avoid passing password via -a flag in Redis health checks #3618
• feat: add optional gRPC port to bifrost cluster deployment and service #3617 👈 (View in Graphite)
• feat: add timeout comments to guardrail rule and provider entries in values.yaml #3612
• dev

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 5/5

The changes are additive Helm template conditionals with correct syntax and no effect on existing deployments that don't set the grpc key.

Both templates follow the exact same guard pattern already used in stateful.yaml and service-headless.yaml for the same feature. The port values, protocol, and named targetPort reference are all consistent. No existing behavior is altered.

No files require special attention.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml	Adds conditional gRPC container port to the cluster ports block; syntax is correct and consistent with the existing gossip port pattern.
helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml	Adds conditional gRPC service port entry targeting the named grpc container port; mirrors the same guard and structure used in the headless service.

_{Reviews (6): Last reviewed commit: "chore: expose grpc service port if menti..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml (1)

79-83: ⚡ Quick win

Consider validating that the port value exists.

The conditional checks if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc is truthy but then accesses .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port without verifying the port field exists. If a user sets bifrost.cluster.grpc: {} or defines grpc configuration without the port field, the template will fail with an unclear error during rendering.

While this follows the existing pattern used for gossip ports (lines 73-78), consider one of these approaches for better user experience:

-{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc }}
+{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port }}

or with an explicit validation message:

-{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc }}
 - name: grpc
-  containerPort: {{ .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port }}
+  containerPort: {{ .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port | required "bifrost.cluster.grpc.port is required when grpc is enabled" }}
   protocol: TCP
-{{- end }}

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml` around lines 79 - 83, The
template currently checks .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc but dereferences
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port which can be missing; update the deployment
template to validate that the port field exists (e.g., check both
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port or use
default/required logic) before rendering the grpc containerPort, and provide a
clear error or fallback value if port is absent; locate the grpc block in the
deployment template (the conditional using .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and the
reference to .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port) and adjust the conditional or
add a validation message so the template won’t fail when grpc is defined without
a port.

helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml (1)

28-33: ⚡ Quick win

Consider validating that the port value exists.

The conditional checks if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc is truthy but then accesses .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port without verifying the port field exists. This mirrors the same concern in the deployment template and could lead to unclear template rendering errors if misconfigured.

For consistency with the deployment template fix, consider the same validation approach:

-{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc }}
+{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port }}

or with an explicit validation message:

-{{- if .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc }}
-- port: {{ .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port }}
+- port: {{ .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port | required "bifrost.cluster.grpc.port is required when grpc is enabled" }}
   targetPort: grpc
   protocol: TCP
   name: grpc
-{{- end }}

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml` around lines 28 - 33, The service
template uses .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port without ensuring the port field
exists; update the conditional around the grpc port block in service.yaml to
only render when both .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port are present (or explicitly fail with a clear
message), so the port/targetPort/name grpc stanza is omitted or validated if
port is missing; target the .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port symbols and the grpc port block when making
the change.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml`:
- Around line 79-83: The template currently checks .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc
but dereferences .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port which can be missing; update
the deployment template to validate that the port field exists (e.g., check both
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port or use
default/required logic) before rendering the grpc containerPort, and provide a
clear error or fallback value if port is absent; locate the grpc block in the
deployment template (the conditional using .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and the
reference to .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port) and adjust the conditional or
add a validation message so the template won’t fail when grpc is defined without
a port.

In `@helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml`:
- Around line 28-33: The service template uses .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port
without ensuring the port field exists; update the conditional around the grpc
port block in service.yaml to only render when both .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc
and .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port are present (or explicitly fail with a
clear message), so the port/targetPort/name grpc stanza is omitted or validated
if port is missing; target the .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc and
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port symbols and the grpc port block when making
the change.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: e4c5f43c-5a7b-40d6-9e52-721e99a93b1c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f4a7c96 and 36a1311.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml
• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml`:
- Around line 79-82: The template uses .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port without
ensuring it exists; update the deployment template so that when
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc is truthy you require the port value (use Helm's
required function or an explicit check) before rendering the containerPort
stanza; specifically, guard or replace references to
.Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port (the grpc port lookup) with a
required("bifrost.cluster.grpc.port is required when bifrost.cluster.grpc is
configured", .Values.bifrost.cluster.grpc.port) call or an if/else that throws a
clear error so Helm fails fast with a meaningful message instead of producing an
invalid manifest.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2ac42691-fc86-4301-ad34-fd72b5e8915e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 36a1311 and de7044b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/deployment.yaml
• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• helm-charts/bifrost/templates/service.yaml

[akshaydeo]

Merge activity

• May 25, 6:33 AM UTC: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• May 25, 6:34 AM UTC: @akshaydeo merged this pull request with Graphite.

The base branch was changed.