-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
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
Conversation
hi @chen-keinan could you take a look? |
Please cross check if the title updates are in sync with the AVD_DOCS |
verified |
721b9eb
to
6126b63
Compare
|
||
changeVerbs := ["update", "create", "*"] | ||
changeVerbs := ["create", "update", "patch", "delete", "deletecollection", "impersonate", "*"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 * ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
in general lgtm , see failing tests |
6126b63
to
89d51e0
Compare
@chen-keinan I have addressed the issues with the failing tests. Could you approve and run the workflows? |
@mjshastha could you please rebase your branch with upstream |
… commercial version.
89d51e0
to
6f4d882
Compare
… commercial version.
…to updating_rego_titles
Our objective is to align the titles and logic with the commercial version.