Implementing IEP008 - constituency field - #2573
Merged
Merged
Conversation
sebix
requested changes
Mar 3, 2025
sebix
left a comment
sebix
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- missing documentation in
docs/user/event.md - missing documentation in
NEWS.md
Member
|
Upgrade function in |
sebix
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2025
Member
|
requires #2575 to be merged first, then we rebase this on on develop. |
sebix
changed the title
Member
|
Rebased on develop to fix the conflicts with it. It still conflicts with #2575, so we need to do the step again after the other PR is merged. |
aaronkaplan
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2025
The change has been proposed and discussed over a year ago
Member
|
rebased on develop |
Member
|
party! 🥳 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The change has been proposed and discussed over
a year ago.
Compatibility: as no bot uses the field by default at the moment, there is no incompatibility risk if the local operator uses modified IDF schema or stores all data in e.g. SQL database. To prevent issues, until the next major release the official bots using the field should fall back to
extra.<field name>if the field does not exist in the local IDF.IEP: https://github.com/certtools/ieps/tree/main/008
Relevant discussion: https://lists.cert.at/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/intelmq-users@lists.cert.at/thread/V2QC7GJGJEFE7VLAJDMDAABOCUZUUVKM/#MUIZIQIUTFL4VQQE4SHWKHIVZU2PJJT2