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

Add entities.metadata #2769

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

romulets
Copy link
Member

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 information

Screenshot/Data

image

Related Issues

@romulets romulets requested a review from a team as a code owner November 25, 2024 14:44
Copy link

mergify bot commented Nov 25, 2024

This pull request does not have a backport label. Could you fix it @romulets? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

  • backport-v./d./d./d is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit
    NOTE: backport-v8.x has been added to help with the transition to the new branch 8.x.

Copy link
Member

@kubasobon kubasobon left a 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.

Comment on lines +348 to +349
// Picking up only first id, we need to make a decision on if we
// have a "primary" id or if we duplicate data
Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Comment on lines +334 to +335
Category string `json:"category"`
Type string `json:"type"`
Copy link
Member

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?

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants