internal: Add support for 'sensitive' JSON tag for bundle config fields#5896
Open
andrewnester wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
internal: Add support for 'sensitive' JSON tag for bundle config fields#5896andrewnester wants to merge 5 commits into
andrewnester wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
andrewnester
requested review from
denik,
janniklasrose,
pietern and
shreyas-goenka
Contributor
Approval status: pending
|
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
Collaborator
Integration test reportCommit: 687b636
8 interesting tests: 4 RECOVERED, 4 SKIP
Top 10 slowest tests (at least 2 minutes):
|
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
andrewnester
had a problem deploying
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Failure
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
andrewnester
temporarily deployed
to
test-trigger-is
GitHub Actions
Inactive
|
|
||
| for fieldName := range fields { | ||
| fv, err := dyn.GetByPath(resource, dyn.NewPath(dyn.Key(fieldName))) | ||
| if err != nil { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Error does not necessarily imply that the field is not present. We should check for the "not found" error?
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| s, ok := fv.AsString() | ||
| if !ok || s == "" { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we error or panic if a non-string field has the "sensitive" tag? Seems like we should enforce that invariant rather than silently accepting it.
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
| buf, err := json.MarshalIndent(b.Config.Value().AsAny(), "", " ") | ||
| v, err := bundleconfig.MaskSensitiveFields(b.Config.Value()) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This only masks the values in the final output. Should we be more agressive and mask it out before? Maybe even disallow references to these values? Do we need direct interpolation in UC secrets case?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes
Add support for 'sensitive' JSON tag for bundle config fields
Why
This allows us to mark certain fields (for example, secrets.value) as sensitive and let CLI handle masking it in command outputs.
Used in #5861
Tests
Added unit tests. Will be tests end to end with unit tests with UC secrets