Or, we can create new transformation types
STELLAR_COMPLETE, which may be more in line with the original design.
On November 30, 2017 at 20:14:46, Otto Fowler (ottobackwa...@gmail.com)
wrote:
I would suggest that instead of explicitly having “complete”, we have
“operation”:”complete”
Such that we can have multiple transformations, each with a different
“operation”.
No operation would be the status quo ante, if we can do it so that we don’t
get errors with old configs and the keep same behavior.
{
"fieldTransformations": [
{
"transformation": "STELLAR",
“operation": “complete",
"output": ["ip_src_addr", "ip_dst_addr"],
"config": {
"ip_src_addr": "ipSrc",
"ip_dest_addr": "ipDst"
} ,
{
"transformation": "STELLAR",
“operation": “SomeOtherThing",
"output": [“foo", “bar"],
"config": {
“foo": “TO_UPPER(foo)",
“bar": “TO_LOWER(bar)"
}
}
]
}
Sorry for the junk examples, but hopefully it makes sense.
On November 30, 2017 at 20:00:06, Simon Elliston Ball (
si...@simonellistonball.com) wrote:
I’m looking at the way parser config works, and transformation of field
from their native names in, for example the ASA or CEF parsers, into a
standard data model.
At the moment I would do something like this:
assuming I have fields [ipSrc, ipDst, pointlessExtraStuff, message] I might
have:
{
"fieldTransformations": [
{
"transformation": "STELLAR",
"output": ["ip_src_addr", "ip_dst_addr", "message"],
"config": {
"ip_src_addr": "ipSrc",
"ip_dest_addr": "ipDst"
}
}
]
}
which leave me with the field set:
[ipSrc, ipDst, pointlessExtraStuff, message, ip_src_addr, ip_dest_addr]
unless I go with:-
{
"fieldTransformations": [
{
"transformation": "STELLAR",
"output": ["ip_src_addr", "ip_dst_addr", "message"],
"config": {
"ip_src_addr": "ipSrc",
"ip_dest_addr": "ipDst",
"pointlessExtraStuff": null,
"ipSrc": null,
"ipDst": null
}
}
]
}
which seems a little over verbose.
Do you think it would be valuable to add a switch of some sort on the
transformation to make it “complete”, i.e. to only preserve fields which
are explicitly set.
To my mind, this breaks a principal of mutability, but gives us much much
cleaner mapping of data.
I would propose something like:
{
"fieldTransformations": [
{
"transformation": "STELLAR",
"complete": true,
"output": ["ip_src_addr", "ip_dst_addr", "message"],
"config": {
"ip_src_addr": "ipSrc",
"ip_dest_addr": "ipDst"
}
}
]
}
which would give me the set ["ip_src_addr", "ip_dst_addr", "message”]
effectively making the nulling in my previous example implicit.
Thoughts?
Also, in the second scenario, if ‘output' were to be empty would we assume
that the output field set should be ["ip_src_addr", “ip_dst_addr”]?
Simon
