Bug #15125
openRule shown as "Mixed" whereas applied to one audit node and one (skipped) enforce directive
Description
Found in 5.0.1
Files
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 5 years ago
- Related to Bug #15124: Rule tag is "Enforce" whereas it has both enforce and audit nodes added
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 5 years ago
- Related to Bug #14379: Directive appear in "mixed" mode in a rule applied on only one node added
Updated by François ARMAND over 5 years ago
- Subject changed from Rule shown as "Mixed" whereas is is applied olnly to one audit node to Rule shown as "Mixed" whereas is is applied only to one audit node
- Severity set to Major - prevents use of part of Rudder | no simple workaround
- User visibility set to Getting started - demo | first install | Technique editor and level 1 Techniques
- Priority changed from 0 to 70
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 5 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0.13 to 5.0.14
- Priority changed from 70 to 68
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 5 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0.14 to 5.0.15
- Priority changed from 68 to 67
Updated by François ARMAND about 5 years ago
- Effort required set to Very Small
- Priority changed from 67 to 93
Perhaps a missing filter by node, we should at least try to understand the pb in a budget of "very small"
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 5 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0.15 to 5.0.16
- Priority changed from 93 to 92
Updated by Alexis Mousset almost 5 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0.16 to 5.0.17
- Priority changed from 92 to 88
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from 5.0.17 to 5.0.18
- Priority changed from 88 to 85
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 4 years ago
- Assignee set to Benoît PECCATTE
- Target version changed from 5.0.18 to 6.0.8
- Priority changed from 85 to 82
Many things changed since 5.0.1, so retargeting to 6.0 and we first need to try to reproduce it
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 4 years ago
- Effort required changed from Very Small to Small
- Priority changed from 82 to 71
This still happens in 6.0 - this is because there is One directive in Audit, and 2 directives skipped, and one of them is in Enforce
So we need to be able to identify that some directives are skipped in the computation of Enforce/Audit/Mixed
probably larger than very small
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 4 years ago
- Effort required changed from Small to Medium
- Priority changed from 71 to 44
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.0.8 to 6.0.9
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 4 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.0.9 to 6.0.10
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 4 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.0.10 to 798
Updated by Alexis Mousset over 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 798 to 6.1.14
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.14 to 6.1.15
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.15 to 6.1.16
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.16 to 6.1.17
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.17 to 6.1.18
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.18 to 6.1.19
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 2 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.19 to 6.1.20
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 2 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.20 to 6.1.21
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 2 years ago
- Target version changed from 6.1.21 to old 6.1 issues to relocate
Updated by Benoît PECCATTE almost 2 years ago
- Assignee deleted (
Benoît PECCATTE) - Priority changed from 44 to 0
- Regression set to No
Updated by François ARMAND about 1 year ago
- Subject changed from Rule shown as "Mixed" whereas is is applied only to one audit node to Rule shown as "Mixed" whereas applied to one audit node and one (skipped) enforce directive
It is still the case as of 7.3.9, but the main problem is that "skipped" directive are not displayed, when they really should.
Correcting #22525 will help with that one (and then, I'm not sure we want to change the behavior of mixed without making a clear distinction between "what is the status of the applied directive to the rule (ie compliance)" and "what is the status of the configured directive for the rule" (where "mixed" is correct)
Updated by François ARMAND about 1 year ago
- File clipboard-202311091717-qhzn0.png clipboard-202311091717-qhzn0.png added
- Target version changed from old 6.1 issues to relocate to 7.3.10
- Severity changed from Major - prevents use of part of Rudder | no simple workaround to Minor - inconvenience | misleading | easy workaround
- User visibility changed from Getting started - demo | first install | Technique editor and level 1 Techniques to Infrequent - complex configurations | third party integrations
Updated by François ARMAND about 1 year ago
- Related to Bug #22525: Directives applied twice don't show in rule details (they should be skipped) added
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 1 year ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.10 to 7.3.11
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 11 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.11 to 7.3.12
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 10 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.12 to 7.3.13
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 10 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.13 to 7.3.14
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 8 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.14 to 7.3.15
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 7 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.15 to 7.3.16
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ 6 months ago
- Target version changed from 7.3.16 to 7.3.17