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

[persistent collections] based on PR-866 #1261

Draft
wants to merge 31 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

tty2
Copy link
Contributor

@tty2 tty2 commented Dec 25, 2024

This PR is based on the PR-866 of the original repository.
It is related to the issue-1227.
Persistence collections

Thanks for your contribution ❤️

return fmt.Errorf("initcol: collection %s is not valid", col)
}
// we validate if this is a persistent collection
persistent := []string{"USER", "SESSION", "IP", "RESOURCE", "GLOBAL"}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we really need to restrict arbitrary collection creation?

@@ -76,8 +78,10 @@ func (a *setvarFn) Init(_ plugintypes.RuleMetadata, data string) error {
colKey, colVal, colOk := strings.Cut(key, ".")
// Right not it only makes sense to allow setting TX
// key is also required
if strings.ToUpper(colKey) != "TX" {
return errors.New("invalid arguments, expected collection TX")
available := []string{"TX", "USER", "GLOBAL", "RESOURCE", "SESSION", "IP"}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jptosso Clould you help me here? It's your changes, I believe you have more context here.

I personally see the reason of making constraints, just to minimize unpredictable behavior.
And in the future, if we really need we can extend it without breaking compatibility.
On the other hand if we make it possible to pass anything now and bring constrains after, there is a chance to break code for someone.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey! setvar can only be used for this set of variables. Others are not mutuable, but IMOwe can use type assertion for this

)

// defaultEngine
// defaultEngine is just a sample and it shouldn't be used in production.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't we use the third-party library then?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can use own custom engine if we need.
Take a look here.

switch v := res.(type) {
case string:
return v, nil
case int:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we even store it as int if we only set a value of type string?

experimental/plugins/plugintypes/transaction.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
// Copyright 2023 Juan Pablo Tosso and the OWASP Coraza contributors
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// Copyright 2023 Juan Pablo Tosso and the OWASP Coraza contributors
// Copyright 2024 Juan Pablo Tosso and the OWASP Coraza contributors

Maybe even 2025.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure. These changes made in 2023 by Juan.
I'd keep it as it is.

internal/variables/variables.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jptosso
Copy link
Member

jptosso commented Dec 30, 2024

Great job here. There is a PR for the close implementation #1200

@tty2
Copy link
Contributor Author

tty2 commented Dec 30, 2024

Great job here. There is a PR for the close implementation #1200

Thanks @jptosso
I'll come back to it after finishing with tests.

@tty2
Copy link
Contributor Author

tty2 commented Jan 7, 2025

JFYI: the PR is ready from my side. There are unit-tests and I checked it on my local machine with some rules.
I'm not opening it just because we'd like to make some manual tests with current implementation using many existing sec rules we already have for system. As soon as we make sure it works fine, I'll open if for review.
Hopefully we'll do it during the next couple of weeks.

// // SetOne will replace the key's value with this string
// SetOne(key string, value string)

// SetTTL will set the TTL for the key
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is TTL in seconds, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All the exported methods should have documentation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not necessary here.
It's not a part of the library but an example for users that they can implement their own pesistence engine and the proof that it works.
Look at the path

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 this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants