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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
ENH: Add ability to copy more fields from the report #2513
ENH: Add ability to copy more fields from the report #2513
Changes from 1 commit
8795410
a1b1051
afe6b2d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
When this code is in
intelmq.lib.bot.ParserBot.process
, it will not be active in all parsers as the above documentation suggests.Adding it to
intelmq.lib.message.Report.__init__
(and passing the parameter inintelmq.lib.bot.Bot.new_event
will cover all cases AFAIK.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.
Hmm, you mean some parsers do not use the
process
? Then they do not use thedefault_fields
, right?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.
process
can be overwrittenThere 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.
Of course, it could be, but I didn't know it's a broad practice - I've looked at the source code, and you're right, a lot of parsers rely on overriding the whole
process
. I'll move the code to thenew_event
, and I think we should consider moving support ofdefault_fields
there as well as this is something I'd expect all parsers to support (but it's a separated thing).