Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: [email protected]
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

Wasn't the dag processor part resolved in #51080 ?

Wasn't the dag processor part resolved in #51080 ?

Kinda @eladkal, it depended on whether the .Values.dagProcessor.enabled was set or not.
By default, the .Values.dagProcessor.enabled is ~ or nil, so in the block - ref, it will never be templated as expected:

  {{- if .Values.dagProcessor.enabled }}
  - kind: ServiceAccount
    name: {{ include "dagProcessor.serviceAccountName" . }}
    namespace: "{{ .Release.Namespace }}"
  {{- end }}

To solve this we need to apply the same logic that’s used in the deployment and service account conditions for the DAG Processor - ref.
I may have gone too far in trying to make it as DRY as possible, but this might prevent problems like this one in the future.

To test this, just set rbac.createSCCRoleBinding: true, and use all the default values.

@brancof can you take a look at the failing tests?

@eladkal I believe the /helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/security/test_scc_rolebinding.py was failing (test_create_scc and test_create_scc_worker_only) because there is no entry for the api-server resource.

Ref: https://github.com/apache/airflow/actions/runs/15693620873/job/44214695300

Since the changes add the api-server service account reference to the list of subjects (in the ClusterRoleBinding), and since by default in v3 the API server is enabled, the tests are failing.

Possible solution:

• Add an "or" logic, i.e. it is release-name-airflow-webserver or release-name-airflow-api-server

I just don't know if more tests are required because of this (api-server enabled, or webserver enabled).