[backend] Improve handling of refs relationships (#4476) #5004
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Goumies
reviewed
Nov 30, 2023
| @@ -48,14 +57,36 @@ export const isDatable = (entityType, relationshipType) => { | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| // Mutation | |||
|
|
|||
| // @Deprecated method. | |||
| // updateField must be directly used | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not find this method in the project. What are you referring to ?
Is it a TODO ?
Comment on lines
+101
to
+116
| if (entity) { // Entity can be null for global | ||
| if (entity.creator_id) { | ||
| contextData.creator_ids = Array.isArray(entity.creator_id) ? entity.creator_id : [entity.creator_id]; | ||
| } | ||
| if (entity[RELATION_GRANTED_TO]) { | ||
| contextData.granted_refs_ids = entity[RELATION_GRANTED_TO]; | ||
| } | ||
| if (entity[RELATION_OBJECT_MARKING]) { | ||
| contextData.object_marking_refs_ids = entity[RELATION_OBJECT_MARKING]; | ||
| } | ||
| if (entity[RELATION_CREATED_BY]) { | ||
| contextData.created_by_ref_id = entity[RELATION_CREATED_BY]; | ||
| } | ||
| if (entity[RELATION_OBJECT_LABEL]) { | ||
| contextData.labels_ids = entity[RELATION_OBJECT_LABEL]; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those lines are duplicates from domain/stix.js.
I took the liberty to refactor both files with a dedicated function reducing the nesting of if and the code duplication
Comment on lines
+66
to
+81
| buildRelationRef(contains, (_: string, toType: string) => [ENTITY_DIRECTORY, ENTITY_HASHED_OBSERVABLE_STIX_FILE].includes(toType)) | ||
| ]); | ||
| schemaRelationsRefDefinition.registerRelationsRef(ENTITY_DOMAIN_NAME, [ | ||
| buildRelationRef(resolvesTo, (fromType: string, toType: string) => [ENTITY_DOMAIN_NAME, ENTITY_IPV4_ADDR, ENTITY_IPV6_ADDR].includes(toType)) | ||
| buildRelationRef(resolvesTo, (_: string, toType: string) => [ENTITY_DOMAIN_NAME, ENTITY_IPV4_ADDR, ENTITY_IPV6_ADDR].includes(toType)) | ||
| ]); | ||
| schemaRelationsRefDefinition.registerRelationsRef(ENTITY_EMAIL_MESSAGE, [ | ||
| buildRelationRef(from, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(sender, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(to, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(cc, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(bcc, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(bodyMultipart, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_MIME_PART_TYPE === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(rawEmail, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_HASHED_OBSERVABLE_ARTIFACT === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(from, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(sender, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(to, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(cc, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(bcc, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(bodyMultipart, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_EMAIL_MIME_PART_TYPE === toType), | ||
| buildRelationRef(rawEmail, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_HASHED_OBSERVABLE_ARTIFACT === toType), | ||
| ]); | ||
| schemaRelationsRefDefinition.registerRelationsRef(ENTITY_EMAIL_ADDR, [ | ||
| buildRelationRef(belongsTo, (fromType: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_USER_ACCOUNT === toType) | ||
| buildRelationRef(belongsTo, (_: string, toType: string) => ENTITY_USER_ACCOUNT === toType) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the Checker type is only used in this file, maybe we could update it by removing fromType from the function arguments ?
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #4476