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

Stop adding 'process-end' audit entry #538

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 13, 2019
Merged

Conversation

Rezney
Copy link
Member

@Rezney Rezney commented Jul 17, 2019

We already have "process-start" and "process-result" so
we do not need "process-end" as it does not add any
additional value.

@centos-ci
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@Rezney
Copy link
Member Author

Rezney commented Jul 17, 2019

Original reason for digging into this was that when trying to analyse DB content using "jq" tool, it failed as "process-end" was not JSON.

So we can either remove it or change to JSON. What do you think @vinzenz ?

@vinzenz
Copy link
Member

vinzenz commented Jul 17, 2019

@AloisMahdal heads up on this, if you rely on it somehow

@Rezney I agree

@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ def get_audit_entry(event, context):

:param context: The execution context
:type context: str
:param event: Type of this event e.g. process-start or process-end but can be anything
:param event: Type of this event e.g. process-start or process-result but can be anything
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that I see this, this is weird wording. Type of this event ... can be anything. It sounds like it can be of any type, which it can't. Identifier for this type of event, might be more clear.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Fixed.

@vinzenz
Copy link
Member

vinzenz commented Jul 17, 2019

Other than the documentation rewording this looks good to me.

We already have "process-start" and "process-result" so
we do not need "process-end" as it does not add any
additional value.
@Rezney Rezney force-pushed the remove_process_end branch from 363b4df to c28e7b5 Compare July 17, 2019 14:55
@Rezney
Copy link
Member Author

Rezney commented Jul 17, 2019

@vinzenz thanks for checking this. Also good idea to ask @AloisMahdal so we do not break anything. Let's wait for his ack...

@AloisMahdal
Copy link

Sorry, my github notifications reading morale was bad lately.

Thanks for asking, but we don't query the db too much yet, and only the "messages" part and we just print it, so I don't think this should break tests.

Copy link
Contributor

@drehak drehak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@drehak drehak merged commit a327d9e into oamg:master Aug 13, 2019
pirat89 added a commit to pirat89/leapp that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2019
## Packaging
- Add the /var/log/leapp directory to the leapp RPM

## Framework
### Fixes
- Handle string types in compatible way
- Allow testing actors (run unit & component tests) with workflow config models

### Enhancements
- Stop adding 'process-end' audit entry (oamg#538)
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (oamg#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage
- Add additional metadata (hash) to reporting messages to be able to identify them uniquely

## Leapp
### Fixes
- Various fixes in desplaying of generated reports
- Show help message for proper subcommand

### Enhancements
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (oamg#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage

## Snactor
### Fixes
- Fix processing of actors when two actors start with the same name (oamg#548)

### Enhancements
- Add sanity-check command

## stdlib
### Fixes

### Enhancements
- improve failed command error message
- log external command errors to audit
@pirat89 pirat89 mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2019
pirat89 added a commit to pirat89/leapp that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2019
## Packaging
- Add the /var/log/leapp directory to the leapp RPM

## Framework
### Fixes
- Handle string types in compatible way
- Allow testing actors (run unit & component tests) with workflow config models

### Enhancements
- Stop adding 'process-end' audit entry (oamg#538)
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (oamg#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage
- Add additional metadata (hash) to reporting messages to be able to identify them uniquely

## Leapp
### Fixes
- Various fixes in displaying of generated reports
- Show help message for proper subcommand

### Enhancements
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (oamg#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage

## Snactor
### Fixes
- Fix processing of actors when two actors start with the same name (oamg#548)

### Enhancements
- Add sanity-check command

## stdlib
### Fixes

### Enhancements
- improve failed command error message
- log external command errors to audit
pirat89 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2019
## Packaging
- Add the /var/log/leapp directory to the leapp RPM

## Framework
### Fixes
- Handle string types in compatible way
- Allow testing actors (run unit & component tests) with workflow config models

### Enhancements
- Stop adding 'process-end' audit entry (#538)
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage
- Add additional metadata (hash) to reporting messages to be able to identify them uniquely

## Leapp
### Fixes
- Various fixes in displaying of generated reports
- Show help message for proper subcommand

### Enhancements
- Introduce report composability, remove renders (#543)
- Introduce answerfile generation & usage

## Snactor
### Fixes
- Fix processing of actors when two actors start with the same name (#548)

### Enhancements
- Add sanity-check command

## stdlib
### Fixes

### Enhancements
- improve failed command error message
- log external command errors to audit
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.

5 participants