-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
Add section
and sectionOrder
validations.
#4739
Conversation
Changelog(s) in markdown:
|
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.
Approved from my side with minor comments.
demisto_sdk/commands/validate/validators/ST_validators/ST111_no_exclusions_schema.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
demisto_sdk/commands/content_graph/strict_objects/integration.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
Good Job!!
Don't forget to check ST110 and ST111 on Content.
Play and check all possible cases and make sure ST110 behaves at the same way
Thanks!
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.
Great Work Tal!
Please fix my few comments.
""" | ||
if "sectionOrder" in data and "sectionorder" not in data: | ||
data["sectionorder"] = data.pop("sectionOrder") | ||
elif "sectionOrder" in data and "sectionorder" in data: |
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.
Why would we have sectionOrder
and sectionorder
in the same yml? Wouldn't we want to fail this case?
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.
Thought we agreed on combining the two (Union) in our initial discussion with Shunim
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.
Do we have an example of such a case?
Related Issues
fixes: https://jira-dc.paloaltonetworks.com/browse/CIAC-5406
Description
This PR adds to the ST-110 validation by fixing some pydantic models.
The addition will make sure ST-110 will support: