Hi all, I am proceeding with building the 0.4.0 release candidate, from current HEAD of master.
Christian, still looking forward to getting the improvements for the PaloAlto parser in, in testable form. If you’re not going to be able to fix the unit tests presently, please tell the community so maybe someone else will pick up the task. (BTW, we are all under various time constraints, so we understand if you cannot commit the time at this point.) You also mentioned being able to provide some anonymized test data, which would be extremely useful if someone else does need to do the unit tests. Thanks much, --Matt On 6/2/17, 11:36 AM, "Matt Foley" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi Christian, I agree this would be nice to have. I also agree with @kylerichardson ‘s review comments that the change (with field renames and outputs) is large enough to require consistent changes in the unit test. Could you please revive the unit test for PaloAltoParser? Thanks, --Matt On 6/2/17, 2:03 AM, "Christian Tramnitz" <[email protected]> wrote: While not a must-have, METRON-941 / PR-579 should be trivial enough to include it. Thanks, Christian
