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

Decouple Delivery Targets From Route Groups #535

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

Conversation

cfarmer-fearless
Copy link
Contributor

@cfarmer-fearless cfarmer-fearless commented Oct 18, 2024

This is an iteration on the deliver configuration schema. The goal is to decouple delivery targets from routing groups. This will improve robustness by preventing possible misconfiguration of creating multiple delivery targets with the same name. With this, we want to make sure the server fails to start if the deliver yml is misconfiguration in this way.

Copy link

Fortify Scan Results

🟢 Status: ✅ Passed

Summary

  • 🚨 Critical Issues: 0
  • 🛑 High Issues: 0
  • ⚠️ Medium Issues: 0
  • 🔍 Low Issues: 0

No Action Required

No vulnerabilities were identified in this scan.

Detailed Results

📂 Scanned Path(s)

upload-server

📊 Detailed Scan Results


sourceanalyzer is installed.
FPRUtility is installed.
fortifyclient is installed.
Using Fortify Source Analyzer to scan the code from upload-server. Results will be upload-server.fpr.
Printing the results using Fortify FPRUtility, FPRUtility summarizes and translate results.
Summary of all issues:

Total for all categories => 0 Issues

****************************************************
Number of critical issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of high issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of medium issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of low issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************

Details of all issues in csv format:




Copy link

Fortify Scan Results

🟢 Status: ✅ Passed

Summary

  • 🚨 Critical Issues: 0
  • 🛑 High Issues: 0
  • ⚠️ Medium Issues: 0
  • 🔍 Low Issues: 0

No Action Required

No vulnerabilities were identified in this scan.

Detailed Results

📂 Scanned Path(s)

upload-server

📊 Detailed Scan Results


sourceanalyzer is installed.
FPRUtility is installed.
fortifyclient is installed.
Using Fortify Source Analyzer to scan the code from upload-server. Results will be upload-server.fpr.
Printing the results using Fortify FPRUtility, FPRUtility summarizes and translate results.
Summary of all issues:

Total for all categories => 0 Issues

****************************************************
Number of critical issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of high issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of medium issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************
Number of low issues:
No issues matched search query.
****************************************************

Details of all issues in csv format:




@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ func ProcessFileReadyEvent(ctx context.Context, e *event.FileReady) error {
}
dataStreamId := metadata.GetDataStreamID(e.Metadata)
dataStreamRoute := metadata.GetDataStreamRoute(e.Metadata)
d, ok := delivery.GetDestinationTarget(dataStreamId, dataStreamRoute, e.DestinationTarget)
d, ok := delivery.GetGroupTarget(dataStreamId, dataStreamRoute, e.DestinationTarget)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

any concerns with reducing this down to delivery.GetTarget(e.DestinationTarget)?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants