feat: source_uuid to multiscan #147
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #147 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.77% 95.57% -0.20%
==========================================
Files 5 5
Lines 1208 1244 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 1157 1189 +32
- Misses 51 55 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
alina-tuholukova-gg
force-pushed
the
alina/add-source-id-parameter-for-multiscan
branch
from
89889f1 to
90b4d91
Compare
alina-tuholukova-gg
force-pushed
the
alina/add-source-id-parameter-for-multiscan
branch
2 times, most recently
from
02eb61e to
ea1cd34
Compare
alina-tuholukova-gg
force-pushed
the
alina/add-source-id-parameter-for-multiscan
branch
2 times, most recently
from
839ff83 to
0f89473
Compare
|
@agateau-gg I added new changes, we are finally using a new endpoint for issue creation, since we predict that the issue creation flow might change (new parameters specific only for issue creations etc). Could you please re-review the MR? |
…the found secrets
alina-tuholukova-gg
force-pushed
the
alina/add-source-id-parameter-for-multiscan
branch
from
0f89473 to
8b80880
Compare
| def scan_and_create_incidents( | ||
| self, | ||
| documents: List[Dict[str, str]], | ||
| source_uuid: UUID, | ||
| extra_headers: Optional[Dict[str, str]] = None, | ||
| params: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None, | ||
| ) -> Union[Detail, MultiScanResult]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need that params argument? I think it would be better to have properly typed optional arguments than a pass-through like this.
Also, can you mark optional arguments as keyword-only by adding a * before extra_headers so that we can safely reorder them if need be?
| class DocumentsForIncidentCreationSchema(BaseSchema): | ||
| documents = fields.List(fields.Nested(DocumentSchema), required=True) | ||
| source_uuid = fields.UUID(required=True) | ||
|
|
||
| @post_dump | ||
| def transform_filename_to_document_identifier( | ||
| self, data: Dict[str, Any], **kwargs: Any | ||
| ) -> Dict[str, Any]: | ||
| """Transform filename field to document_identifier in the documents list""" | ||
| if "documents" in data: | ||
| for document in data["documents"]: | ||
| if "filename" in document: | ||
| document["document_identifier"] = document.pop("filename") | ||
| return data | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class DocumentsForIncidentCreation(Base): | ||
| """ | ||
| DocumentsForIncidentCreation is a request object for communicating a list of documents | ||
| along with a source UUID to the API for incident creation | ||
|
|
||
| Attributes: | ||
| documents (List[Document]): list of documents to scan | ||
| source_uuid (UUID): UUID identifying the source | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| SCHEMA = DocumentsForIncidentCreationSchema() | ||
|
|
||
| def __init__(self, documents: List[Document], source_uuid: UUID, **kwargs: Any): | ||
| super().__init__() | ||
| self.documents = documents | ||
| self.source_uuid = source_uuid | ||
|
|
||
| def __repr__(self) -> str: | ||
| return f"documents:{len(self.documents)}, source_uuid:{self.source_uuid}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can avoid adding these classes: scan_and_create_incidents() can do something like this:
payload = {
"source_uuid": source_uuid,
"documents": [{
"document_identifier": x["filename],
"document": x["document"],
} for x in documents]
}
When source_uuid parameter is provided for the multiscan endpoint, the incidents will be
created for the found secrets