Skip to content
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

Unit-Testing using contentctl #3028

Merged
merged 77 commits into from
Jul 10, 2024
Merged

Unit-Testing using contentctl #3028

merged 77 commits into from
Jul 10, 2024

Conversation

patel-bhavin
Copy link
Contributor

@patel-bhavin patel-bhavin commented Jul 8, 2024

This PR enables Unit-testing in Github Actions CI using contentctl.

Additionally added a script to pretty print the pass/failures of detections from summary.yml

image

pyth0n1c
pyth0n1c previously approved these changes Jul 9, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@pyth0n1c pyth0n1c left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe this looks good. After it is merged, we should do some stress-testing where we open a PR from an external (non splunk/security_content member) repo to ensure that the mode:changes functionality works from external forks as well.

@@ -23,29 +21,20 @@ jobs:
run: |
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this workflow needs jq (anymore) can it be removed entirely?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removed!


- name: Install System Packages and contentctl
run: |
sudo apt update -qq
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now that we are doing the processing with python i think we can remove jq?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removed

@patel-bhavin
Copy link
Contributor Author

This workflow was also tested on PR from Dean Luxton (Splunker) and it seemed to have worked correctly! You can check the run here :

#3024

Copy link
Collaborator

@pyth0n1c pyth0n1c left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed workflow and results. Looks great! Approved!

@patel-bhavin patel-bhavin merged commit 769359e into develop Jul 10, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants