[backend/frontend] move background tasks execution to worker (#10274)#10699
[backend/frontend] move background tasks execution to worker (#10274)#10699JeremyCloarec merged 11 commits intorelease/currentfrom
Conversation
f28528f to
cdc967c
Compare
cdc967c to
781cf14
Compare
781cf14 to
e74d8fa
Compare
c9e8e23 to
061a23e
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release/current #10699 +/- ##
===================================================
- Coverage 65.31% 64.83% -0.48%
===================================================
Files 716 716
Lines 70156 70316 +160
Branches 7683 7611 -72
===================================================
- Hits 45822 45589 -233
- Misses 24334 24727 +393 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
061a23e to
1e46e4d
Compare
d4fcbcb to
8c0ef89
Compare
| const progressFullText = `${t_i18n('Progress')}${progressNumberDisplay}${provisioningNumberDisplay}`; | ||
| let progressValue = 0; | ||
| if (task.work) { | ||
| if (task.work.status === 'complete') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it possible to use enum or constants to avoid having a string for status checks ?
|
|
||
| const USE_SSL = booleanConf('smtp:use_ssl', false); | ||
| const REJECT_UNAUTHORIZED = booleanConf('smtp:reject_unauthorized', false); | ||
| const SMTP_ENABLE = booleanConf('smtp:enabled', true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change seems unrelated to background tasks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a leftover from Julien's PR. I agree that it's unrelated, but I didn't remove it thinking that it maybe could be useful in some cases
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually I think it's usefull for test run on CI at least.
| if (isStixSightingRelationship(type)) { | ||
| return 'sighting'; | ||
| } | ||
| if (isBasicRelationship(type)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand this change, is this fixing a bug ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A leftover from Julien's PR also. I assumed that it was a fix/improvement in the stix model (that way all relationships will be typed as relationship instead of ref relationships being typed as their entity_type)
aHenryJard
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like there are several bug fix included in this PR, would be better to have them in dedicated PRs IMO.
Since the taskManager it rewritten, have you tried to move it to typescript ?
Haven't worked on a TS refacto, but I could look into it to see if it is a lot of work or not |
bef0e58 to
a4e1ce7
Compare
a4e1ce7 to
41f4f8e
Compare
aHenryJard
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good to go for me, let's merge that ! Really great job.
Proposed changes
client PR: OpenCTI-Platform/client-python#883
Related issues
Checklist
Further comments