-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 181
[ON Week] Fix errors in code blocks in Fleet docs #3982
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -149,10 +149,10 @@ If `map_ecs_fields` is enabled then the following field mappings are also perfor | |
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | `event.code` | `winlog.event_id` | | | ||
| | `event.kind` | `"event"` | | | ||
| | `event.provider` | `<Event><System><Provider>` | `Name` attribute | | ||
| | `event.action` | `<Event><RenderingInfo><Task>` | | | ||
| | `event.host.name` | `<Event><System><Computer>` | | | ||
| | `event.provider` | `winlog.provider_name` | `Name` attribute | | ||
| | `event.action` | `winlog.task` | | | ||
| | `event.outcome` | `winlog.outcome` | | | ||
| | `host.name` | `winlog.computer_name` | | | ||
|
Comment on lines
+152
to
+155
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not sure how to validate these changes
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @bmorelli25, yeah, I should have added a note about this change as it’s not obvious.. Originally, Cursor only highlighted that
So I went ahead and checked the example it refers to on line 39-87 (this is a link to the original doc before the current change). Because the original table for mapping the ECS fields, where the AI found the error, was inconsistent in how it referred to the winlog fields, I checked the example and figured out I could replace I applied the same logic for the other changes in the Field column - checking against the winlog fields that are in the example. Does that make sense? It made sense to me, but I’m not an expert, so if you think it would be safer to stick with the original values, I can revert these changes and we could only keep
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just another thought: So the doc includes two tables at the end:
Because the second column says "Source XML or other field”, I suppose it’s not incorrect to have mixed values in this column, including both winlog fields and the original event information, so my change may be unnecessary. But they’re essentially the same thing as far as I understand (because of the mapping: original event info -> winglog fields -> ECS fields). Hmm 🤔 If we go with the winlog fields as the values in the "Source XML or other field” column, then maybe the third column “Notes” and the information about the
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for the explanation. So I agree that And I now understand what the other changes are. I guess whether the “Source XML or other field” column says Also the column is literally titled “Source XML or other field”, so having a mix of raw XML and Also also, if the source column says You could have an extra column and call out XML in one column and field in the other. But idk if that's needed. tl;dr I think this is an okay change as the information is correct and the table is now easier to read. |
||
| | `log.level` | `winlog.level` | | | ||
| | `message` | `winlog.message` | | | ||
| | `error.code` | `winlog.error.code` | | | ||
|
|
||
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.
Wowzer. This must've been a bad regex match? Good find.