Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Our objective is to align the titles and logic with the commercial version. #1382

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 27, 2023

Conversation

mjshastha
Copy link
Contributor

@mjshastha mjshastha commented Jul 10, 2023

Our objective is to align the titles and logic with the commercial version.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jul 10, 2023

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@simar7 simar7 requested a review from chen-keinan July 10, 2023 20:06
@simar7
Copy link
Member

simar7 commented Jul 10, 2023

hi @chen-keinan could you take a look?

@dheerajkadri
Copy link
Contributor

Please cross check if the title updates are in sync with the AVD_DOCS

@mjshastha
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please cross check if the title updates are in sync with the AVD_DOCS

verified


changeVerbs := ["update", "create", "*"]
changeVerbs := ["create", "update", "patch", "delete", "deletecollection", "impersonate", "*"]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

wondering why we are using asterisk (*) here - wildcard character that matches any string. We have added more verbs now. Do we still need * ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Certainly! We have expanded the list of verbs and included the wildcard "*" value in order to align the oss with the commercial.

Copy link
Contributor

@dheerajkadri dheerajkadri Jul 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we are using the wildcard (*), then there is no need to define verbs explicitly, since the asterisk( * ) will match any verb. Using the wildcard character could result in the policy generating false positives. Additionally, using the wildcard character could make the policy less efficient, as it will have to check for rules that allow a wider range of verbs.

Can you check if we really need this wildcard character ? this is used in many checks

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I concur that including a wildcard () in the verbs list negates the need to define verbs explicitly, as the asterisk () will match any verb. The asterisk (*) was already present in the verbs list, and I introduced additional verbs to ensure alignment between the oss and commercial.

@chen-keinan
Copy link
Contributor

in general lgtm , see failing tests

@mjshastha
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjshastha commented Jul 27, 2023

@chen-keinan I have addressed the issues with the failing tests. Could you approve and run the workflows?

@chen-keinan
Copy link
Contributor

@mjshastha could you please rebase your branch with upstream

@simar7 simar7 merged commit a9ded81 into aquasecurity:master Jul 27, 2023
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants