-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Add entities.metadata #2769
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add entities.metadata #2769
Conversation
This pull request does not have a backport label. Could you fix it @romulets? 🙏
|
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.
The code looks good. Asking a couple of questions for my information. We can catch-up on Zoom about this if you'd like that better.
// Picking up only first id, we need to make a decision on if we | ||
// have a "primary" id or if we duplicate data |
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.
That's super important. We also have to pay attention to always put "the" asset ID in the ids[0]
spot.
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.
This is a product question I want to clear it up. I believe it was a bad decision in the end to have multiple ids.
We need to have a standardized id per resource. We need to make the decision for example is aws iam user arn or username? And one for each one of those.
The initial attempt of having a "correlation best chance" approach isn't going to help us in the asset inventory, unfortunately.
internal/inventory/asset.go
Outdated
Category string `json:"category"` | ||
Type string `json:"type"` |
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.
Are there any other fields planned? What will happen if we change the taxonomy we have now (Category, Sub-Category, Type, Sub-type) to a less granular one?
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.
There might have other fields.
Once we change the taxonomy, we should follow the taxonomy.
This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏
|
4cd966d
to
489bf3b
Compare
Summary of your changes
As part of implementing the first iteration of the Cloud Entities in Entity Store, we need to populate the field
entities.metadata
with the relevant informationScreenshot/Data
Related Issues