fix documentation for helm extraPorts

[jkruke]

PR Description

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

Fixes #1997

Notes to the Reviewer

PR Checklist

• CHANGELOG.md updated
• Documentation added

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[clayton-cornell]

@jkruke Don't forget to sign the CLA so we can move forward with your PR.

The Helm chart tests are not up to date. Please run make generate-helm-tests and commit changes!

[jkruke]

@clayton-cornell The CLA is now signed and I ran the helm tests.
Due to the results, I realized that k8s pod ports need hostPort, but a service needs port.
So I changed the service templates to use hostPort instead of the (not documented) port.

[clayton-cornell]

@grafana/grafana-alloy-maintainers Can one of you take a look at this one? My Helm knowledge isn't strong enough to check/verify these changes.

[wildum]

@petewall could you check this change to the helm chart please

[petewall]

Is this a breaking change for anyone who has deployed alloy with the port and not hostPort?

[jkruke]

Is this a breaking change for anyone who has deployed alloy with the port and not hostPort?

Yes it is, because port would have no effect anymore and hostPort would be required if using a service.
Probably it would be more clean (and non-breaking) to stick to extraPorts.hostPort and extraPorts.port but just to extend the extraPorts documentation by mentioning port ("The port that will be exposed by the service.").

I easily could change that again. How do you think about it?