Policy probe util #3790
Policy probe util #3790
Conversation
End-rey
requested review from
carpawell,
cthulhu-rider and
roman-khimov
as code owners
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3790 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 25.68% 25.67% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 660 661 +1
Lines 42203 42197 -6
==========================================
- Hits 10838 10835 -3
+ Misses 30383 30379 -4
- Partials 982 983 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
End-rey
force-pushed
the
policy-probe-util
branch
from
9bbeb3f to
7b9ea0b
Compare
Add a CLI utility to validate container policies and display nodes that are policy-compliant in the current epoch. Closes #3626. Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <andrey@nspcc.io>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <andrey@nspcc.io>
| @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ | |||
| package container | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Anything with "test" in name is suspicious by definition, better name it policy.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here I mean it's pretty easy to confuse it with policy_test.go that'd be a test file, test_policy.go is not, but it looks so close that we're better not name it this way.
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| var testPolicyCmd = &cobra.Command{ | ||
| Use: "test-policy", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can also be policy to me. Maybe policy try like we have acl basic print, although here it's application to a particular network that matters. I'm open to other suggestions, but I'd try to avoid test as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you suggesting a separate policy command with a single try command?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Maybe some other policy things could be done in future. But I'd like to hear @carpawell and @cthulhu-rider as well.
Closes #3626.