Open Andreagit97 opened 9 months ago
Probably we don't have a way to solve it because we need to set a precise order, but is important to document it
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Provide feedback via https://github.com/falcosecurity/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Provide feedback via https://github.com/falcosecurity/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale Do we need to document it somewhere or it is ok to close it? @leogr @LucaGuerra
/remove-lifecycle stale Do we need to document it somewhere or it is ok to close it? @leogr @LucaGuerra
I believe yes. Moving to falco-website /kind documentation
/assign @leogr /assign @LucaGuerra
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close
.
Provide feedback via https://github.com/falcosecurity/community.
/lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Describe the bug
add a new list at the beginning of
falco-incubating_rules.yaml
file.dev_creation_binaries
is a list defined in thefalco-incubating_rules.yaml
file, but it is defined after thisappend
. Now run Falco with thefalco-incubating_rules.yaml
file loaded.You should face this error:
Now if you move the
append
after the list definition, all works well!Expected behaviour
Ideally, the
append
behavior shouldn't depend on where we put it in the file. we need to check if we can do that