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

fortinet_fortigate: fix handling of events with from fields #3901

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 29, 2022

Conversation

efd6
Copy link
Contributor

@efd6 efd6 commented Jul 29, 2022

Previously, the rename would attempt to redo work already done by the
append, causing a pipeline failure. So remove it.

What does this PR do?

This fixes handling of SIP events by removing a redundant rename processor.

Checklist

  • I have reviewed tips for building integrations and this pull request is aligned with them.
  • I have verified that all data streams collect metrics or logs.
  • I have added an entry to my package's changelog.yml file.
  • I have verified that Kibana version constraints are current according to guidelines.

Author's Checklist

  • This abuses the ECS to place the SIP address in the email address field. I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea, or that it is commonly done. Input welcome. A potential enhancement would be to properly handle the SIP address.

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Screenshots

@efd6 efd6 added bug Something isn't working, use only for issues Team:Security-External Integrations Integration:Fortinet (Deprecated) Use one of the specific fortinet_X labels. labels Jul 29, 2022
@efd6 efd6 self-assigned this Jul 29, 2022
Previously, the rename would attempt to redo work already done by the
append, causing a pipeline failure. So remove it.
@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Jul 29, 2022

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2022-07-29T12:40:22.663+0000

  • Duration: 18 min 6 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test Results
Failed 0
Passed 8
Skipped 0
Total 8

🤖 GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

@efd6 efd6 marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2022 12:43
@efd6 efd6 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 29, 2022 12:43
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-external-integrations (Team:Security-External Integrations)

@elasticmachine
Copy link

🌐 Coverage report

Name Metrics % (covered/total) Diff
Packages 100.0% (1/1) 💚
Files 100.0% (4/4) 💚 2.868
Classes 100.0% (4/4) 💚 2.868
Methods 100.0% (38/38) 💚 10.749
Lines 92.003% (1070/1163) 👍 1.402
Conditionals 100.0% (0/0) 💚

Copy link
Contributor

@taylor-swanson taylor-swanson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

I originally made the changes for the append/email, but that rename appears to be an oversight on my part. It should've been removed, which is being done here.

Since fortinet has been split into separate packages, I take it we are deprecating the fortinet package and only maintaining this one from now on?

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor Author

efd6 commented Jul 29, 2022

Since fortinet has been split into separate packages, I take it we are deprecating the fortinet package and only maintaining this one from now on?

That is my understanding.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working, use only for issues Integration:Fortinet (Deprecated) Use one of the specific fortinet_X labels.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fortinet Integration Error
3 participants