Add lifecycle to core dpl

[derekcha]

Hello,
I'm using Harbor so well, and I'm glad I was able to raise a PR like this.

What improvements does these changes make?
A 504 or EOF error occurred when rolling while using Harbor.
It looks like the pods aren't being cleaned up properly on shutdown (possibly because there is a port after AWS LB).
So I tested randomly setting the prestop(sleep 60) lifecycle for containers in Harbor Core and no errors occurred.
So, I am uploading a PR so that lifecycle settings can be done through this chart.

I will write down the link to the issue I registered below.
#1722

[derekcha]

@MinerYang @zyyw
Can you review it?

[zyyw]

Hi @derekcha , thanks for contributing to harbor-helm. Could you please help to resolve the DCO failure as suggested here:

• https://github.com/goharbor/harbor-helm/pull/1739/checks?check_run_id=23332568346

[Vad1mo]

for consistancy reasons, It would make sense to support lifecycle on all pods not just the core.

[derekcha]

@zyyw I ran it according to the link instructions and saw the message below, so it was resolved, right?
All commits are signed off!

@Vad1mo
In addition to the core, lifecycle was added to other deployments and sts.

holding for discussion

[derekcha]

@zyyw Are you still discussing this PR?

[kimxogus]

I want this feature too. This PR doesn't look adding default lifecycles to existing workloads, just provide a way to configure it.
@zyyw Is there any concerns or point to discuss about in this PR?

[github-actions]

This PR is being marked stale due to a period of inactivty. If this PR is still relevant, please comment or remove the stale label. Otherwise, this PR will close in 30 days.

[derekcha]

@zyyw @Vad1mo
hello
Can't this PR be merged?

[kimxogus]

@Vad1mo @zyyw Can anyone review this?

[github-actions]

This PR is being marked stale due to a period of inactivty. If this PR is still relevant, please comment or remove the stale label. Otherwise, this PR will close in 30 days.

[kimxogus]

@Vad1mo @zyyw This PR has been holding for 7 months for discussion. Is there any issue we need to consider adding lifecycle to pods for 7 months...??? I don't know what kind of discussion is needed for this change. It just looks simple to me.
I'm having 5xx response issues for months and I believe adding lifecycles to pods could help resolving this issue to me.
Please consider reviewing and merging this PR.

[Vad1mo]

I believe adding lifecycles

What does that mean? you are not sure that it works yet?

[kimxogus]

@Vad1mo I'm using AWS ALB and I need to make pods to serve requests before connections to be drained and new pods ALB health checks to be passed.