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

http: move xff logging to alert object #7148

Closed

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber commented Mar 17, 2022

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4860
but also https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/1369

Describe changes:

  • http : move logged field xff from root to alert.xff

suricata-verify-pr: 796
OISF/suricata-verify#796

Replaces #7051 with moving into alert instead of taking care of http stuff

Ticket: 4860

instead of root field
@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

I need to update the S-V test...

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 6590

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 18, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #7148 (463555f) into master (3a490fb) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 90.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7148      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.06%   78.14%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         628      628              
  Lines      185266   185272       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits       144635   144783     +148     
+ Misses      40631    40489     -142     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 60.27% <70.00%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 54.58% <80.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
unittests 63.12% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Copy link
Member

@jasonish jasonish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me. I think the SV PR should be split so this can be merged without the schema stuff.

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks good to me. I think the SV PR should be split so this can be merged without the schema stuff.

Done cf OISF/suricata-verify#797 and OISF/suricata-verify#796

This was referenced Mar 29, 2022
@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

Merged in #7187, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants