We could like to proceed with this idea, and it would be better if values.schema.json got updated too to keep it consistent with sandbox component.

I've updated values.schema.json using the losisin/helm-values-schema-json plugin, with --draft 7 and --indent 2. It sorted the values alphabetically. If that's an issue, let me know if there's a preferable way to generate the file.

We've updated values.schema.json to match the layout of values.yaml thus making git diff more concise. We've also proposed to eliminate possible confusions and keep things simple for existing users as stated above as the long term effort to lower the complexity of this chart for for a long time.

Shall we proceed with the preferable option?

Shall we proceed with the preferable option?

The preferable option loses some functionality. I think we can find a better way to implement this

OK. Let's set the ultimate goal to "provide unify extra volume mount support for each component".

We'll expect things listed below in the following updates:

• Enable extra volume and extra volume mount configuration for each of the component. (Achieved already in this PR)
• Unify naming convention following weaviate-helm and bitnami/redis, we'll use <component>.extraVolumes and <component>.extraVolumeMounts terminology instead instead of <component>.persistence.volumeMounts and <component>.persistence.volumeMount, including the existing sandbox component.
• Keep <component>.persistence backward compatible and follow conventions in bitnami/charts as much as possible like bitnami/reids