ci(helm-diff): fix name for distributed scenario

[kir4h]

What this PR does / why we need it:

The name of the scenario/values file suggest they relate to single binary deployment mode, but the contents actually relate to the distributed one

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

N/A (unable to find a related issue)

Special notes for your reviewer:

First time interacting with this repository, so not familiar with it but the PR makes sense to me given the content of that values file where deploymentMode: Distributed is set.

One thing I am not clear about is why there are 2 folders ci and scenarios with different files (the files with same name are identical, so was just wondering if a single folder could serve both purposes) but again new to the repo so I lack background.

scenarios/
├── README.md
├── default-distributed-values.yaml
├── default-values.yaml
├── ingress-values.yaml
├── legacy-monitoring-values.yaml
├── simple-scalable-aws-kube-irsa-values.yaml
└── simple-thanos-values.yaml

ci/
├── default-single-binary-values.yaml
├── default-values.yaml
├── distributed-disabled.yaml
├── enterprise.yaml
├── ingress-values.yaml
└── legacy-monitoring-values.yaml

Checklist

• Reviewed the CONTRIBUTING.md guide (required)
• Documentation added
• Tests updated
• Title matches the required conventional commits format, see here
  • Note that Promtail is considered to be feature complete, and future development for logs collection will be in Grafana Alloy. As such, feat PRs are unlikely to be accepted unless a case can be made for the feature actually being a bug fix to existing behavior.
• Changes that require user attention or interaction to upgrade are documented in docs/sources/setup/upgrade/_index.md
• If the change is deprecating or removing a configuration option, update the deprecated-config.yaml and deleted-config.yaml files respectively in the tools/deprecated-config-checker directory. Example PR

[trevorwhitney]

good catch, though this means we're now missing a single binary scenario which we probably want.

[trevorwhitney]

looks like you need to sign the CLA

[kir4h]

though this means we're now missing a single binary scenario which we probably want

From my understanding, those scenarios are meant to help in PR reviews by printing diffs in the chart when templates/values are modified. Given that there are conditionals that only apply when single binary is enabled I would say yes, it is needed. I can create another PR to add it using the values from the ci folder

looks like you need to sign the CLA

Signed! (first time on this repo, was not familiar with it and didn't see an action point on the template)