-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 685
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
update notes of the R36 requirement for ANSSI #11639
update notes of the R36 requirement for ANSSI #11639
Conversation
🤖 A k8s content image for this PR is available at: Click here to see how to deploy itIf you alread have Compliance Operator deployed: Otherwise deploy the content and operator together by checking out ComplianceAsCode/compliance-operator and: |
Co-authored-by: Marcus Burghardt <2074099+marcusburghardt@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
The description is fine. I just wonder if the status could not be moved to "automated" instead of "partial". I understood that part of the requirement can be automated and part is manual. The part that can be automated is already automated. So, leaving the status as partial may create the impression that more automation is still possible and is pending.
I am glad you ask, because I had similar tendencies. But from the description of statuses in the devel guide, this was not clear for me. I suggest we update this guide to explicitly state that "automated" means that what could be automated with regards to the control, is automated. There might be cases when the control is phrased in a way so that it just can't be automated completely. I can do a separate PR if you agree. |
Code Climate has analyzed commit ffceb64 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 59.8% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
Sure, it would be good to clarify how to proceed in cases like this in the Devel Guide. I don't think we have many similar cases, but when we have, an agreement on how to proceed would be good. |
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.
LGTM. We discussed an update in Devel Guide to clarify how to proceed with the status field when everything possible to be automated is already automated but part of the same requirement is manual.
Description:
Rationale: