feat: adding scopedenforcementactions #403

JaydipGabani · 2024-03-13T16:06:09Z

This PR implements changes for multi ea/ep design.

The gists of the changes are:

ConstraintToBinding takes a list of enforcement actions instead of determining them (this will be handled by the reconciler code).
The client knows which enforcement points it can use. When adding constraints for templates, the constraints store precompiled enforcement actions for each known enforcement point.
One of the client's enforcement points must match the sourceEP in Review for enforcement. If no enforcement points are passed in Review, enforcement applies to all points known to the client.
Stored constraints are checked against the source of review requests (gator, audit, webhook). Constraints without scopedEnforcementActions are reviewed for all sources.

For gatekeeper changes and CI tests refer to PR gatekeeper/3321

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

constraint/pkg/client/client_internal_test.go

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

sozercan

LGTM

maxsmythe

Nice! A few comments, but looking good.

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

constraint/pkg/client/client.go

constraint/pkg/client/constraint_client.go

constraint/pkg/client/drivers/k8scel/driver.go

constraint/pkg/client/drivers/rego/driver.go

constraint/pkg/client/drivers/to_result.go

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

codecov-commenter · 2024-04-08T21:56:52Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.83838% with 48 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 53.80%. Comparing base (76869f8) to head (67de36b).
Report is 28 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go	58.82%	19 Missing and 9 partials ⚠️
...onstraint/pkg/client/clienttest/cts/constraints.go	75.43%	10 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
constraint/pkg/client/template_client.go	82.35%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...lient/drivers/k8scel/transform/make_vap_objects.go	84.61%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
constraint/pkg/client/clienttest/client.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #403      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.68%   53.80%   -0.89%     
==========================================
  Files          71      104      +33     
  Lines        5241     6745    +1504     
==========================================
+ Hits         2866     3629     +763     
- Misses       2073     2745     +672     
- Partials      302      371      +69

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`53.80% <83.83%> (-0.89%)`	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

JaydipGabani · 2024-04-09T00:20:10Z

@maxsmythe Sorry for the delay. I have addressed all the comments and implemented the feedback. PTAL.

Signed-off-by: Jaydipkumar Arvindbhai Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe

No worries! Sorry for the delay on my end. Getting close!

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

constraint/pkg/client/client.go

constraint/pkg/client/client_opts.go

constraint/pkg/client/drivers/k8scel/transform/make_vap_objects.go

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

constraint/pkg/client/client.go

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

ritazh · 2024-07-26T01:40:01Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+		}
+		return result, nil
+	}
+	return nil, fmt.Errorf("scopedEnforcementActions value must be a []scopedEnforcementAction{action: string, enforcementPoints: []EnforcementPoint{name: string}}")


ritazh · 2024-07-26T01:40:06Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+				return nil, fmt.Errorf("scopedEnforcementActions value must be a []scopedEnforcementAction{action: string, enforcementPoints: []EnforcementPoint{name: string}}")
+			}
+		}
+		return result, nil


Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe · 2024-07-25T23:25:46Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

@@ -45,3 +64,101 @@ func GetEnforcementAction(constraint *unstructured.Unstructured) (string, error)

 	return action, nil
 }
+
+func IsEnforcementActionScoped(action string) bool {
+	return strings.EqualFold(action, EnforcementActionScoped)


It looks like other checks for enforcement action are case sensitive. We should follow the same pattern.

https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/blob/bd96c5263523be54642dcb4a88c2a9e502a74ea7/pkg/webhook/policy.go#L300-L309

@maxsmythe were you meaning to refer to some other codeblock? I tested the switch in the code you shared, it is defaulting when r.enforcementAction is mis-matching with string(util.Dryrun) or string(util.Warn) with case sensitive r.enforcementAction.

@JaydipGabani From the code Max linked, it means we should preserve the case sensitivity of enforcementAction instead of converting it to all lowercase. Currently, only these are expected https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/blob/master/pkg/util/enforcement_action.go#L14-L18 so unless users pass in deny, dryrun, warn, scoped (new one that we should add to that list), we should set it as unrecognized.

@ritazh Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for being confused. Checking for case sensitve matching for actions now.

maxsmythe · 2024-07-26T00:19:20Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+	for _, scopedEA := range scopedEnforcementActions {
+		for _, enforcementPoint := range scopedEA.EnforcementPoints {
+			epName := strings.ToLower(enforcementPoint.Name)
+			ea := strings.ToLower(scopedEA.Action)


For consistency with pre-existing code, case-sensitive comparison (see G8r code link above)

maxsmythe · 2024-07-26T00:34:00Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+		for _, enforcementPoint := range scopedEA.EnforcementPoints {
+			epName := strings.ToLower(enforcementPoint.Name)
+			ea := strings.ToLower(scopedEA.Action)
+			// If enforceAll is true, or the enforcement point is explicitly listed, initialize its action map


This comment is inaccurate (does not initialize if EP is explicitly listed), and also unnecessary, since it merely describes the if statement and does not explain anything nuanced or unintuitive.

maxsmythe · 2024-07-26T00:34:15Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+			if _, ok := actionsForEPs[epName]; !ok && enforceAll {
+				actionsForEPs[epName] = make(map[string]bool)
+			}
+			// Skip adding actions for enforcement points not in the list unless enforceAll is true


unnecessary comment

maxsmythe · 2024-07-26T00:41:21Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+	actionsForEPs := make(map[string]map[string]bool)
+	// Populate the actionsForEPs map with enforcement points from eps, initializing their action maps
+	for _, enforcementPoint := range eps {
+		if enforcementPoint == AllEnforcementPoints {


Is there some reason AllEnforcementPoints would be passed to this function?

The behavior if "*" is passed here and also exists in scopedEnforcementPoints seems poorly-defined.

I was considering that reviewopts and client would have * to support all enforcement points and that made the whole implementation complex. I reverted to your suggestion that wildcard should not be allowed in reviewops and client. So not there is no reson that AllEnforcementPoints would be passed to this function.

constraint/pkg/client/reviews/review_opts.go

constraint/pkg/client/template_client.go

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

ritazh · 2024-07-26T20:01:40Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+			case string(Warn), string(Dryrun):
+				action = scopedEA.Action
+			default:
+				action = string(Deny)


shouldnt we return error? we cant assume non valid values just all default to deny. we can only set to deny when enforcementAction is not provided.

https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/blob/bd96c5263523be54642dcb4a88c2a9e502a74ea7/pkg/webhook/policy.go#L300-L309 this code assumes not dryrun, not warn, means deny because it's processing the response returned by the driver. but we should not make that assumption here.

https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/blob/bd96c5263523be54642dcb4a88c2a9e502a74ea7/pkg/webhook/policy.go should also be updated to include scope otherwise, it will default to deny.

Right now the behavior is, if someone turns off the disable-enforcementaction-validation flag on gatekeeper, then constraints can be created with whatever enforcementAction (enforcementAction: fake) - Link. In this case, constraint gets added to the template client regardless of the "valid/invalid" enforcement action. Keeping the behavior same IMO we should just pass whatever scoped enforcement action is in the constraint without validating it when adding the constraint to template client. The mechanism to handle this already exists in gatekeeper when we receive responses in gatekeeper with "unrecognised" actions - Link.

By default, we are vlidating enforcement action and scoped enforcement actions to reject constraint with not valid enforcement action. enforcementAction: deny, dryrun, warn, scoped and scopedEnforcementActions[].action: deny, dryrun, warn

So should I remove this block altogether then? I dont think we need this check here.

https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/blob/bd96c5263523be54642dcb4a88c2a9e502a74ea7/pkg/webhook/policy.go should also be updated to include scope otherwise, it will default to deny.

I think we should keep this as is because when response include scoped enforcement action, the implementation looks at scoped enforcement actions. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/pull/3321/files#diff-d3c8e52b699d3596d1057b82890a2ed8624445f1ee8f6d3d8a532e13766b99a8R261

Rita is correct, the code should be removed.

The fact that constraints can be created with arbitrary enforcement actions is intentional. This is because we cannot know, and should not presume to know, what enforcement actions are available to any EPs.

We should not validate enforcement actions and just take them as we come.

If EPs want to perform additional validation (e.g. Gatekeeper raising a warning/reporting via status if it is on the hook for taking an action it does not recognize), that's fine, but CF is not equipped to do that. At best it can provide helper functions to allow EPs to implement that extra porcelain.

Assuming unrecognized actions == deny is not a good assumption to make. Example: if Gatekeeper adds a PubSub action, the CF would rewrite it as deny.

Also, we should not return an error. As I alluded to earlier, CF does not and should not know the full set of valid enforcement actions, it just forwards them to EPs, who are responsible for interpreting them.

… client Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe · 2024-07-26T21:44:29Z

constraint/pkg/client/constraint_client.go

+	if apiconstraints.IsEnforcementActionScoped(c.enforcementAction) {
+		for _, ep := range enforcementPoints {
+			var actions []string
+			if ep == apiconstraints.AllEnforcementPoints {


* cannot be provided to matches(), calls to matches() must provide a specific enforcement point.

Remember, * only makes sense when being specified on the constraint.

Agreed. sorry for missing this. FIxed it.

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

constraint/pkg/client/client.go

maxsmythe

Code LGTM, have not reviewed tests, but I defer to Rita there.

ritazh · 2024-07-29T20:47:11Z

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go

+	}
+	for _, scopedEA := range scopedEnforcementActions {
+		for _, enforcementPoint := range scopedEA.EnforcementPoints {
+			epName := strings.ToLower(enforcementPoint.Name)


I don't think we want to do this here since GetEnforcementAction today just passes the value thru as is.
https://github.com/open-policy-agent/frameworks/pull/403/files#diff-5719413b9620718b003f306059ddf823427e2b3b1ee5ab983d74feac8bc850e8L36-L46

If it's not a match compare to the supported EPs, then GK will show it as unrecognized.
https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/pull/3321/files#diff-74281531e73b25d4771eb774e82a3268a57231ca7eb49c03ae6c35366544cb81R80

Since EP can be any string, my preference would be to not converting it to lowercase to preserve it. how do others feel? @maxsmythe @sozercan ?

I'm down with preserving case

ritazh · 2024-07-29T20:49:55Z

constraint/pkg/client/client_opts.go

+func EnforcementPoints(eps ...string) Opt {
+	return func(client *Client) error {
+		for i, ep := range eps {
+			eps[i] = strings.ToLower(ep)


Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

ritazh

LGTM

* adding scopedenforcementactions Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding tests Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing tests Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refactoring template client and query Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refatoring queryopts to reviewopts Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating ccomments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing EP variables Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * generic webhook EP Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * simplifying constraintToBinding Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * checking lowercase eps, fixing nil variable access Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing file perm Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding tests for case sensitivity and missing enforcementaction Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating gk-webhook EP Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing test Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding enforcement action and scoped enforcement actions in result and response spec Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing faulty test Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refactoring code for simplycity Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing comments, removing * from review opts and client opts Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * mandating client to be initialized with enforcment point Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * case sensitive check for actions Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating code comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing enforcement action check while adding constriant to template client Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing all enforcement points from matches Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * preserving enforcement point names Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jaydipkumar Arvindbhai Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> feat: adding scopedenforcementactions (open-policy-agent#403) * adding scopedenforcementactions Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding tests Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing tests Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refactoring template client and query Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refatoring queryopts to reviewopts Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating ccomments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing EP variables Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * generic webhook EP Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * simplifying constraintToBinding Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * checking lowercase eps, fixing nil variable access Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing file perm Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding tests for case sensitivity and missing enforcementaction Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating gk-webhook EP Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing test Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * adding enforcement action and scoped enforcement actions in result and response spec Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * fixing faulty test Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * refactoring code for simplycity Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing comments, removing * from review opts and client opts Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * mandating client to be initialized with enforcment point Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * case sensitive check for actions Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * updating code comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing comments Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing enforcement action check while adding constriant to template client Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * removing all enforcement points from matches Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> * preserving enforcement point names Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jaydipkumar Arvindbhai Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com> chore: bump golang from `b03f3ba` to `5c56bd4` in /constraint (open-policy-agent#434) Bumps golang from `b03f3ba` to `5c56bd4`. --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: golang dependency-type: direct:production ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Sertaç Özercan <852750+sozercan@users.noreply.github.com> removing test file Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani commented Mar 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch 2 times, most recently from 0c29c4c to b09049c Compare March 18, 2024 23:01

JaydipGabani mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2024

feat: adding scopedenforcementactions open-policy-agent/gatekeeper#3321

Merged

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch 3 times, most recently from 7bea138 to 8a991c7 Compare March 20, 2024 20:28

JaydipGabani requested review from maxsmythe, ritazh and sozercan March 21, 2024 15:06

adding scopedenforcementactions

4aabc45

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch from 6fd918f to 4aabc45 Compare March 21, 2024 15:06

JaydipGabani commented Mar 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

constraint/pkg/client/client_internal_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch from e34e516 to 604e13c Compare March 21, 2024 18:28

adding tests

81b2d08

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch from 604e13c to 81b2d08 Compare March 21, 2024 18:30

fixing tests

9deaab2

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

sozercan approved these changes Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

maxsmythe reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

JaydipGabani requested a review from maxsmythe March 29, 2024 20:50

refactoring template client and query

909437e

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'master' into multi-ea

e837a1e

Signed-off-by: Jaydipkumar Arvindbhai Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe previously requested changes Apr 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

ritazh reviewed Apr 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

constraint/pkg/apis/constraints/apis.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ritazh reviewed Apr 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

constraint/pkg/client/client.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

refatoring queryopts to reviewopts

a6f1641

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani requested review from maxsmythe and ritazh April 10, 2024 23:54

ritazh reviewed Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

refactoring code for simplycity

6456bd6

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe requested changes Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

removing comments, removing * from review opts and client opts

7fefe2d

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani requested a review from maxsmythe July 26, 2024 06:16

JaydipGabani added 3 commits July 26, 2024 17:15

mandating client to be initialized with enforcment point

9fdd218

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

case sensitive check for actions

bbefecf

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

updating code comments

ac65fcf

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani requested a review from ritazh July 26, 2024 18:55

removing comments

d87f02f

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

ritazh reviewed Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

removing enforcement action check while adding constriant to template…

675353b

… client Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

maxsmythe reviewed Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

removing all enforcement points from matches

ce5a973

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani requested review from ritazh and maxsmythe July 26, 2024 22:14

ritazh reviewed Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

constraint/pkg/client/client.go Show resolved Hide resolved

maxsmythe approved these changes Jul 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

JaydipGabani requested a review from ritazh July 27, 2024 00:24

ritazh reviewed Jul 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

preserving enforcement point names

67de36b

Signed-off-by: Jaydip Gabani <gabanijaydip@gmail.com>

JaydipGabani force-pushed the multi-ea branch from dfd2618 to 67de36b Compare July 31, 2024 02:31

JaydipGabani requested a review from ritazh July 31, 2024 02:58

ritazh approved these changes Jul 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

JaydipGabani merged commit 5e09660 into open-policy-agent:master Jul 31, 2024
7 of 8 checks passed

JaydipGabani deleted the multi-ea branch July 31, 2024 17:29

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: adding scopedenforcementactions #403

feat: adding scopedenforcementactions #403

JaydipGabani commented Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sozercan left a comment

maxsmythe left a comment

codecov-commenter commented Apr 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani commented Apr 9, 2024

maxsmythe left a comment

ritazh Jul 26, 2024

ritazh Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 25, 2024

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ritazh Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ritazh Jul 26, 2024

ritazh Jul 26, 2024

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024

maxsmythe left a comment

ritazh Jul 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ritazh Jul 29, 2024

maxsmythe Jul 30, 2024

ritazh Jul 29, 2024

ritazh left a comment

feat: adding scopedenforcementactions #403

feat: adding scopedenforcementactions #403

Conversation

JaydipGabani commented Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

sozercan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maxsmythe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov-commenter commented Apr 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

JaydipGabani commented Apr 9, 2024

maxsmythe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ritazh Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maxsmythe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ritazh Jul 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ritazh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JaydipGabani commented Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Apr 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ritazh Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JaydipGabani Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

maxsmythe Jul 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ritazh Jul 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading