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

Syntax simplification #128

Closed
subbyte opened this issue Sep 21, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Syntax simplification #128

subbyte opened this issue Sep 21, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@subbyte
Copy link
Member

subbyte commented Sep 21, 2021

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Discussion and planning for syntax revision. Some ideas under discussion:

  1. redundant entity type in GET
x = GET process FROM datasource WHERE [process:pid = 123]

Simplified

x = GET process FROM datasource WHERE pid = 123
  1. redundant entity type in GET from variable
w = GET process FROM z WHERE [process:pid = 123]

Simplified

w = z WHERE pid = 123
  1. expression
<var> [FILTER] [ AGG [ FILTER]] [SORT] [OFFSET] [LIMIT]

may use in DISP and COPY

@subbyte subbyte added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 21, 2021
@subbyte subbyte changed the title Syntax revision Syntax simplification Sep 21, 2021
@subbyte subbyte added this to the Parser upgrade milestone Oct 15, 2021
@pcoccoli
Copy link
Collaborator

For my "expression" idea (number 3 above), we should be able to use an expression just about anywhere we currently allow a variable. The exceptions would be in APPLY (since this modifies a var in-place) and "parameterized STIX patterns" (although maybe they could actually work here too?).

@pcoccoli
Copy link
Collaborator

Maybe we should split this into 2 issues: the first is not requiring STIX patterns after WHERE but also allowing SQL-like "predicates" (e.g. pid = 123 instead of [process:pid = 123]).
The second issue would be 2/3 above: "expressions"

@subbyte
Copy link
Member Author

subbyte commented Feb 17, 2022

Agree

@pcoccoli pcoccoli self-assigned this Mar 21, 2022
@pcoccoli pcoccoli mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2022
@pcoccoli
Copy link
Collaborator

Resolved in develop

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants