-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Fideslang 3.0 #186
Fideslang 3.0 #186
Conversation
* feat: remove data qualifiers * feat: more qualifier removals
ce20cfb
to
f71bcdf
Compare
91f9a4d
to
fe609f8
Compare
fe609f8
to
581c703
Compare
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.
@pattisdr would you mind taking an initial look at this and associated fides PR ethyca/fides#4502?
i still will need to do some more testing, and i'll need to work in a fidesplus PR and make any adjustments as needed there, but i'd like to get your initial thoughts to make sure there's nothing sticking out as missing!
Starting review... |
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.
Nice Adam 👍
I'm so happy you're deprecating registries too. It's a cause of 500 errors when patching Systems via the API directly because there's actually a mismatch between the database type and fideslang type - Registries was never used as intended and it just causes problems from time to time!
marking as ready for review since i've now done a fair amount of testing with fides and fidesplus and generally things are looking good, feeling comfortable that this is a stable update that has what we need 👍 one thing i need to follow up on - anything to check for generated docs/webpages/visuals? any guidance that you have @pattisdr is appreciated, but i can also dig a bit! |
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 great 🏆
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.
@adamsachs Hi, can you point me to the rationale for removing the 4th classification group from the ontology? I still see 4 referenced at certain places in the documentation. Thanks in advance for your attention!
Closes PROD-1490
Description Of Changes
Updates to remove generally unused/deprecated concepts. This will be a significant breaking change, so it justifies a major upgrade, i.e.
3.0
.Code Changes
Steps to Confirm
fides
andfidesplus
!Pre-Merge Checklist
CHANGELOG.md