common: do not validate enrichment names #767
Comments
stanch
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 10, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
benjben
changed the title
stanch
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 11, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
spenes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 13, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
spenes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 26, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
spenes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 26, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
spenes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 26, 2023
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. There is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. This commit removes the validation on “name” (I believe “vendor” is not validated) and only uses “schema” instead.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Users are often confused by the “vendor” and “name” fields in the enrichment configs. They try to change them to reflect their own company or use case, only to discover that it does not work: the values must be exactly as shown in the examples.
However, there is no reason we need to validate or even use these fields, because the “schema” field already contains enough information. A more user-friendly solution would be to ignore “vendor” and “name” (eventually making them optional and phasing them out) and just use “schema”.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: