-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 431
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
user.group
should not be a keyword field, but a place where we can nest the group
field set
#304
Comments
8 tasks
Seems perfectly reasonable to make group a reusable object so it can be nested under user.*
|
I like the suggestion. The problem I see is that we can't really make this change now expect we treat it as a bug. |
This was referenced Jan 23, 2019
webmat
added a commit
to elastic/beats
that referenced
this issue
Jan 24, 2019
This change enables us to nest the `group` field set at `user.group`, rather than being limited to only group name. Imports the changes from ECS elastic/ecs#308, which solves elastic/ecs#304.
DStape
pushed a commit
to DStape/beats
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2019
This change enables us to nest the `group` field set at `user.group`, rather than being limited to only group name. Imports the changes from ECS elastic/ecs#308, which solves elastic/ecs#304.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The current definition of the field
user.group
is problematic, in that it's a place to put a textual group name. This doesn't leave room for other bits of metadata related to a group (the most obvious one being group.id).The
user.group
field actually goes against our principle of not reusing the name of a field set (group
) as a field with a different meaning (user.group
being a string, rather than the nested field set).This issue came up while working on the right way to represent the various users/groups that went into determining effective rights: elastic/beats#10192, elastic/beats#9963 and elastic/beats#10111.
I would like to suggest we make this change for ECS 1.0.0 GA.
Discuss ;-)
cc @ruflin @MikePaquette @cwurm @andrewkroh
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: