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

Review and Approve Findings #64

Closed
aaronweaver opened this issue Jan 15, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Review and Approve Findings #64

aaronweaver opened this issue Jan 15, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@aaronweaver
Copy link
Contributor

Sometimes findings need to be peer reviewed by other reviewers. I'd like the ability to be able to assign a status to the finding of 'Under Review'. When a finding is under review that finding can be assigned to other system reviewers and will notify them that the finding needs to be reviewed. Optionally an email should be sent out notifying a reviewer that there is a finding that should be reviewed.

@devGregA
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm. Status is an interesting field because it is generated on the fly based on other selections in the finding model: https://github.com/rackerlabs/django-DefectDojo/blob/master/dojo/models.py#l527.
It's probably not the best model, but that's how it evolved over time. I think the easiest way to incorporate this would be to add a boolean field to finding as under_review. Then in status add a check. What about how this would relate to the verified field? This might be a good candidate for a plugin vs core like @grendel513 did with surveys https://github.com/grendel513/defectDojo-engagement-survey

@grendel513
Copy link
Contributor

@aaronweaver in looking at #62, it would have to be completed before we can move on this one. Do we think those folks would ever be assigned a Finding for review? Are we strictly sticking to Staff and Superusers as reviewers?

@grendel513 grendel513 mentioned this issue Nov 2, 2016
@grendel513
Copy link
Contributor

@aaronweaver, @devGregA - should Findings under review be counted in the metrics? If yes, then no code changes are needed. If no, then I will have to dig through all the places where metrics are calculated and add the additional check.

@devGregA
Copy link
Contributor

devGregA commented Nov 3, 2016

I think that findings under review are equivalent to not verified findings and could use the same boolean?

@grendel513
Copy link
Contributor

@aaronweaver, @devGregA - perfect, that is the way i started coding it. As soon as it is mark for review the Active attribute will be set to false. Everything that acts on the active switch should fall in line. Thanks!

@grendel513
Copy link
Contributor

@aaronweaver, @devGregA - Findings are now able to be marked for review. Users are able to select any
staff member to review the finding for accuracy. When a finding is marked
for review it is marked inactive and unverified. When reviewer clears
review, they have the option to set the findings status and must also leave
a new note to document verification.

This update requires the following commands:
./manage makemigrations dojo
./manage migrate
./manage collectstatic

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 42 29 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 43 28 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 43 40 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 44 07 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 44 18 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 45 51 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 49 35 pm

screen shot 2016-11-06 at 2 50 13 pm

devGregA pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 9, 2016
@devGregA devGregA closed this as completed Nov 9, 2016
dogboat pushed a commit to dogboat/django-DefectDojo that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants