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
feat: Scripted input support requirement test #442
Conversation
c08af82
to
ed3ee93
Compare
Expected release notes (by @nandinivij) features: others (will not be included in Semantic-Release notes):
|
@@ -162,6 +162,25 @@ def get_events(self): | |||
LOGGER.info( | |||
f"sending data transport_type:forwarder/uf_file_monitor filename:{filename} " | |||
) | |||
elif transport_type in ( | |||
"scripted_input", | |||
"scripted input", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we have "scripted input" and "scripted_input"?
How are transport type values decided?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In requirement files we specify transport types- there are these two common variations in existing logs.
Transport type values are added by the dev team to requirement logs based on the ingestion type of the log in the addon
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we accept only 1 one of them?
Not to create options where we do not need to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we will document only 1 version so that we don't use others in the future, but we are allowing multiple versions to avoid going back and changing existing log files. It is the case with modinput too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nandinivij Can we ensure we document official usage for input types which is sync with PSA input types?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also just for a record are there too many addons which use variations if not we can have them to use same version and ensure consistency and remove unwanted support from here? Do we have a list?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bhargav-nariyani-crest I understand the concern, but this is beyond the scope of this PR. The logs exist before we supported them to work with the requirement test. These are lexical variations and this is to facilitate requirement test work without changing existing logs.
This does not change the transport type we are using in PSA it is the defined transport type in the requirement log.
pytest-splunk-addon/tests/requirement_test_scripted/sample_requirement_test_scripted.log
Line 11 in b76294e
<transport type="scripted input" host="sample_host" source="Unix:Service" sourcetype ="Unix:Service" /> |
Created a Jira to eliminate various variations in transport type from TA'sADDON-44372
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @nandinivij .
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.11.0 🎉 The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Please review following changes -