Make audit-sample-rules into a diff-style tool
#274
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Based on recent discussions, turn the test into a diff-like tool the output of which is to be always reviewed by a human. This is in contrast to the old (current) state which treats the test as a regression test, assuming it is meant to normally 'pass'. And that would make sense if we wanted to keep audit rule lists stored in the content identical with auditd samples, but we (CaC/content) do not want that. Instead, the intention is to just alert about any differences, and let the humans decide whether they are significant enough to update the CaC/content audit rules, and how. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <[email protected]>
This makes it consistent with other diff-style tests. Signed-off-by: Jiri Jaburek <[email protected]>
comps
force-pushed
the
audit_samples_as_diff
branch
from
8dd7c51
to
5755a60
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on recent discussions, turn the test into a diff-like tool the output of which is to be always reviewed by a human.
This is in contrast to the old (current) state which treats the test as a regression test, assuming it is meant to normally
pass.And that would make sense if we wanted to keep audit rule lists stored in the content identical with auditd samples, but we (CaC/content) do not want that.
Instead, the intention is to just alert about any differences, and let the humans decide whether they are significant enough to update the CaC/content audit rules, and how.