Skip to content
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

user.group should not be a keyword field, but a place where we can nest the group field set #304

Closed
webmat opened this issue Jan 21, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #308
Closed

Comments

@webmat
Copy link
Contributor

webmat commented Jan 21, 2019

The current definition of the field user.group is problematic, in that it's a place to put a textual group name. This doesn't leave room for other bits of metadata related to a group (the most obvious one being group.id).

The user.group field actually goes against our principle of not reusing the name of a field set (group) as a field with a different meaning (user.group being a string, rather than the nested field set).

This issue came up while working on the right way to represent the various users/groups that went into determining effective rights: elastic/beats#10192, elastic/beats#9963 and elastic/beats#10111.

I would like to suggest we make this change for ECS 1.0.0 GA.

Discuss ;-)

cc @ruflin @MikePaquette @cwurm @andrewkroh

@willemdh
Copy link
Contributor

Seems perfectly reasonable to make group a reusable object so it can be nested under user.*

user.group.name
user.group.id

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Jan 22, 2019

I like the suggestion. The problem I see is that we can't really make this change now expect we treat it as a bug.

webmat added a commit to elastic/beats that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2019
This change enables us to nest the `group` field set at `user.group`, rather than being limited to only group name.

Imports the changes from ECS elastic/ecs#308, which solves elastic/ecs#304.
DStape pushed a commit to DStape/beats that referenced this issue Aug 20, 2019
This change enables us to nest the `group` field set at `user.group`, rather than being limited to only group name.

Imports the changes from ECS elastic/ecs#308, which solves elastic/ecs#304.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants