Implement audit backend for TimescaleDB.#151
Conversation
Gerrit91
force-pushed
the
audit-timescaledb
branch
from
e0481fa to
31ebdac
Compare
Gerrit91
force-pushed
the
audit-timescaledb
branch
from
31ebdac to
5c3a30c
Compare
| if err := addFilter("body", filter.Body, phrase); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("component", filter.Component, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("detail", filter.Detail, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("error", filter.Error, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("forwardedfor", filter.ForwardedFor, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("path", filter.Path, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("phase", filter.Phase, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("remoteaddr", filter.RemoteAddr, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("rqid", filter.RequestId, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("statuscode", filter.StatusCode, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("tenant", filter.Tenant, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("type", filter.Type, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if err := addFilter("user", filter.User, equals); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this must all match to the Entry json annotations, easy to make mistakes here or miss some of them. There might be a smarter way, but unsure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only other approach that comes to my mind is to put the field names into constants and build a generic map[string]any with them, which will be JSON-serialized instead of using the struct with JSON annotations. Not sure if it's better.
vknabel
left a comment
vknabel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks really promising! Please resolve the conflicts and run go mod tidy
|
So, how about this pull request? I think the implementation here should work? |
majst01
left a comment
majst01
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One small nit, but if fixed we can merge
|
Yup, this implementation is fine. I just tend to review the whole bunch of PRs at once. I only had comments on the other two |
|
Thanks for the reviews, I will adapt the related PRs. |
3 participants
References: