►
From YouTube: Compliance Weekly - 2023-03-28
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right
welcome
to
the
compliance
weekly
sync
call
for
on
the
28th
of
March.
All
right
and
the
first
item
of
business
is
just
to
walk
the
Milestone
board
and
go
through.
Does
anybody
else
want
to
share
this
screen
and
take
us
through
it?.
B
It
says
it's
sharing,
so
I
guess
we're
good
right.
Where
do
we
need
to
start.
D
B
B
Next,
one
is
new
audit
event
Samir,
it's
not
on
call
yeah.
A
I
can
talk
to
this
one,
so
this
was
when
a
group
is
deleted,
making
sure
that
the
because
all
group
ordered
events
are
added
to
the
group.
So
if
you're
at
a
parent
group
or
instance
level,
then
you're
not
aware
that
the
group
has
been
deleted
so
that
now
filters
up
to
the
instance
level
audit
event
logs.
B
All
right,
let's
see
here,
add
key
set
pagination
to
instance,
and
project
audit
events
API.
That
was
on
my
call.
A
Awesome
so
this
will
help
us
with
some
of
our
error
budgeting
that
we
were
having
problems
with
a
few
months
ago.
A
Can
talk
to
that
quickly
as
well,
so
Michael
was
playing
with
well
the
spike
on
adding
a
group
roll-up
column
to
the
order
event
table,
so
we
can
potentially
make
it
easier
for.
A
The
well
speed
up
some
of
the
the
database
queries
for
the
audit
event
table
around
giving
group
level
in
some
group
level
ordered
events,
and
then
he
is
applying
that
into
the
API
endpoint
to
retrieval.
So
that
was
the
related
item.
F
C
C
It
was
like
changing
the
ux
as
well
like
UI
as
well,
every
instance
where
it
was
security
and
compliance.
We
changed
it
with
ampersand.
E
B
Cool
filter,
a
groups
projects
by
compliance
framework,
back-end
task
on
rcmar,
yeah.
D
So
this
implements
graphql
apis
needed
to
the
group
projects
by
a
compliance
framework
and
will.
E
A
Yeah,
thank
you
for
getting
us
done
some
of
the
fronting
issues
in
review
now,
as
well
with
Elia
so
yeah.
Hopefully
we
can
get
that
across
the
line
shortly.
B
Okay,
next
one
is
migrate,
commit
filtering
to
report
to
include
all
commits
Michaels
are
here,
but
I
did
verify
this
one
on
prod,
uction
expected
and
yeah.
It
does
both
if
you
filter
it,
it
filters
yeah.
B
Let's
see,
add
event,
type
information
for
audit
events
using
audit
event
service
and
members
is
another
part
of
our
refactoring
effort
by
Aaron,
I,
think
I.
Also
yeah
I
also
verified
this
on
prod
yeah
I.
Think
the
only
thing
to
say
about
this
is
I
I
noticed
there
weren't
any
testing
steps
or
the
verification
on
this
one,
although
it
was
fairly
straight
forward
to
see
where,
where
those
events
might
be
triggered.
D
For
this
for
this,
they
wanted
to
re-instrument
this
service
ping
for
releases
before
15.1,
which
was
not
possible
because
we
cannot
backward
features
to
such
a
previous
release.
But
now,
in
the
current
release,
I
think
from
the
past
six
months.
This
value
is
correct,
so
I'll
just
close
the
issue.
B
B
A
Yeah
I
think
I
helped
review
this
one.
This
was
a
based
off
the
issue
that
we
had
a
few
weeks
ago
around
the
pipelines,
including
the
project.
Yaml.
That's
it
starts.
It
has
issues
anyway
and
we're
discussing
that
with
the
source
code
team
at
the
moment,
but
this
I
think
gives
us
a
bit
of
breakdown
of
how
it
works
here.
B
All
right,
foreign
type,
information
for
audit
events
using
audit
event
service
and
feature
flag.
This
one
I
did-
and
only
hiccup
here-
was
that
changing
it
to
our
new
service
would
have
changed
the
fact
that
it's
no
longer
in
Foss,
where
previously
it
is
enforce
so
I
added
it
a
bit
of
code
to
make
it
easy
to
have
exceptions
around
that.
But
we
open
an
issue
to
see
if
that's
something
we
generally
want
to
do
or
need
to
change,
let's
in
limbo,.
C
This
should
now
be
unblocked.
This
was
probably
blocked
on
the
optimization
of
the
compliance
partition
query,
so
the
one
that
is
the
first
one
that
is
in
review
right
now
is
not
actually
in
review.
It's
actually
merged
is
blocked
by
this
one
so
which
is
already
froze.
If
you
see
the
second
one
right.
B
C
B
Okay
front
integrate
compliance
violations,
Branch
filter
on
early
I,
believe
yeah
yeah.
G
It
is
I
believe,
still
blocked,
unfortunately,
by
a
back
end
yeah.
So
as
soon
as
that
lands,
I
will
be
paying
more
attention
to
that.
C
B
Nice,
okay,
that's
blocked.
A
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
I
moved
the
filtering
compliance
framework
report,
as
I
mentioned
into
in
review
earlier
and
I
put
you
as
the
first
reviewer
just
because
I
know
that
it
might
conflict
with
the
apply
compliance.
Frameworks
well,
I,
don't
know.
G
What
yeah
I
would
like
like
yeah
to
raise
a
bit
question
here,
I'm,
not
sure,
but
it
seems
that
at
least
previous
reviews,
I've
seen
through
the
teammate
in
terms
of
front-ending,
including
mine,
also
Xavier,
no
special
handling
for
the
mixer
deployments,
which
probably
maybe
I
don't
know.
G
Maybe
we
should
have
an
asynchronous
discussion
on
that
because,
like
we
have
a
specific
guidelines
that
we
should
be
specifically
be
correct,
handling
the
mixed
deployment
scenarios
when
the
back
end
is
running
previous
release
of
gitlab
and
front
end
is
running
a
new
version
of
the
code,
so
basically
to
make
long
story
short.
That
means
that
we
may
might,
if
we
land
the
backend
and
front-end
for
any
featuring
the
same
Milestone.
We
should
consider
the
situation
when
the
front
end
attempts
to
reach
it
and
back
end
is
not
available.
G
So
some
this
is
like
written
in
our
guidelines
on
the
multiversion
compatibility
like
we
should
that
we
should
consider
that
and
like
probably
we
should
somehow
either
we
are
trying
to
split
like
backend
and
front-end
across
different
Milestones,
hiding
I,
don't
know
front
end
behind
the
feature
flag
for
one
version
to
deal
with
that,
or
we
just
need
to
pay
additional
attention.
I
mean
on
front
end
about
that,
because
this
is
like
an
issue
in
terms
of
reliability,
of
the
front-end
side
of
our
code.
G
Well,
basically,
no
matter
what
is
what
about
graphql
API
and
like
any
API,
so
the
way
gitlab
is
deployed
and
I
will
just
post
a
link
to
the
zoom
chat
on
the
big
page.
There
is
that
the
front-end
notes
are
updated
earlier
than
backend
nodes.
C
I
was
just
wondering
if
if
the
backend
could
be
Backward
Compatible
like
it
it
it
honors
both
the
kind
of
request,
the
the
new
version,
as
well
as
the
old
version
and
response
back
according
to
the
request,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
that
would
work
or
not,
but
technically
it.
G
Should
yeah
for
sure,
but
when
we're
introducing
anything
new,
it's
obviously
not
backwards
compatible.
So
if
you
could
you
please
scroll
just
a
bit
bottom
to
the
nice
nice
shiny
table
yeah,
so
here
like
we
see
that
web
nodes,
which
are
running
front-end,
are
updated
earliest
and
backend
nodes.
So
we
just
need
to
consider
situation
when
newer
frontant
is
addressing
old,
is
accessing
all
their
back
end.
G
So
this
one
is
putting
a
bit
more
pressure
and
complexity
on
front
end.
Also,
just
like
a
thing:
I've
noticed
with
a
missing
from
the
pre
something
we
previously
delivered.
G
I'm
like
trying
to
figure
out
just
can't
can't
find
it
if
I
find
I
will
ping
everyone
in
slack
because,
like
I
was
100
sure
before
this
meeting
that
we
have
even
for
graphql
like
a
specific
requirement
prohibiting
delivering
backend
and
front-end
for
Samsung
feature
in
the
Milestone,
but
right
now,
I
can't
quickly
figure
it
out
and
I
hope
I
might
be
hallucinating
yeah.
So
if
I
find
it-
and
it
is
still
there-
I
I'll
link
it
through,
because
this
is
like
an
important
thing.
E
B
B
E
G
Sorry
for
jumping
in
quickly
I
found
this
in
this
is
currently
in
review.
So
as
soon
as
this
will
be
merged,
I
will
let
you
know.
I
posted
link
for
everyone
interested
in
the
zoom
chat.
I
was
just
being
in
there
as
a
graphql
expert,
so.
E
G
Why
I
saw
that
yeah?
It's
just
like
this
specific
line,
might
be
a
thing
to
consider
for
us
if,
if
or
slash
one,
this
will
be
get
merged
so
that
the
graphql
backend
and
front-end
could
be
shipped
within
the
same
release
just
for
context.
Everyone
are
welcome
to
join
the
discussion
on
this
merge
request
about
graphql
reviewing
so
just
FY.
B
Okay,
yeah
no
design,
discussion,
I,
assume.
H
Yeah,
there's
no
much
thing
I
think
to
discuss
now,
I'm,
mainly
working
on
the
last
one.
The
design
for
the
hearings,
report
and
I
will
post
a
video
probably
today
to
work
through
my
first
proposal.
I
just
want
to
mention
it's
probably
quite
big,
because
we
are
moving
to
the
ux
same
thing.
I
will
like
design
for
the
End
Future,
like
maybe
in
one
year
or
something
and
then
later
on.
We
can
discuss
MVC,
but
for
the
design.
I
will
like
include
a
lot
of
features.
H
Just
don't
be
afraid
that
this
is
too
much
I'm,
not
saying
that
we
will
Implement
everything
or
something
the
next
Milestone
so
just
to
show
the
future,
and
then
we
will
work
backwards
to
Define
what
is
MVC.
So
we
can
make
sure
that,
like
we're,
building
something
towards
the
future
and
the
MVC
is
very
like
useful
for
the
user.
A
Excellent
same
next
point
was
the
okay
hours
update
and
before
blockers
with
earlier.
G
Yeah
for
everyone
interested
to
now
review
free,
Vlog,
Nate,
kindly
shared
the
things
I've
posted
on
the
set
group
of
KRS
update
and
the
vital
care
update.
We
are
doing
like
a
boring
work
of
delivering
I
believe
something
like
110
miles
on
the
SEC
SEC
group,
where
we
have
three
Engineers
from
working
group
from
viewfree
migration
working
group
them
I
will
be
one
who
will
be
the
person
with
the
lowest
number
of
merge
requests,
because
I'm
working
on
a
lot
of
infrastructure
things
there.
G
But
since
everything
one
is
fine
on
that,
but
in
general
vgs
working
group
is
doing
a
great
job.
We
are
like
0.1
percent
away
from
fitting
the
entire
development
wide
okr
of
fixing
sixty
percent
of
your
free
GS
tests,
which
were
failing
at
the
start
of
the
Milestone.
That's
why
I
want
to
make
life
of
my
colleagues
a
bit
harder
and
requesting
team
to
allow
us
to
extend
this
OCR
from
60
to
70.
So,
basically,
we
are
doing
a
great
job
on
migration.
A
Awesome
thanks
for
that
yeah.
The
next
point
was
with
me:
fbias
and
I
just
wanted
to
call
it
out
congrats
to
Elia
for
four
years
and
kitlab.
It's
massive
achievement
and
also
for
the
discretionary
bonus
for
the
view.
Three
Q3
migration
working
group,
yeah
excellent
job.
D
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
do
a
quick
walkthrough
on
how
we
can
verify
the
auditing.
E
D
I've
written
on
the
verification
steps
here,
which
you
can
follow
in
manually,
the
verification,
but
for
this
demo,
I
am
going
to
do
the
verification
for
this
first
one.
So,
basically,
first
we
have
to
check,
because
this
entire
armor
was
created.
E
E
D
D
D
D
Second
thing
you
want
to
see
here
is
that
if
stream
only
parameter
is
being
passed
inside
the
audit
context,
if
it
is
being
passed,
then
it
means
that
the
audit
event
is
streaming
only
so
the
value
for
stream
would
be
true,
but
the
value
for
save
to
database
would
be
false.
So
these
three
Fields
will
be
checked
from
the
code
itself.
D
E
D
E
D
And
then
yeah,
you
can
also
check
the
Milestone
from
the
MR.
Where
is
15.3,
and
then
you
have
to
check
the
check
the
issue
link,
so
this
issue
was
also
passed
from
the
branch
name.
So
there
might
be
cases
then,
where
the
issue
URL
is
incorrect,
for
example
here
so
you
will
have
to
manually
get
the
issue
URL
from
the
merge
request
and
the
last
one
is
the
feature
category.
D
This
is
little
ticket
of
fun
and
so
for
most
of
the
Mrs,
you
will
see
that
the
category
being
pushed
is
for
example,
here
the
category
is
audit
events,
but
in
actual
deploy.
Key
is
not
a
part
of
audit
events
right,
so
you
will
have
to
manually
take
the
code
and
see
oras.
D
Yeah
is
being
written
yeah
from
from
that
particular
file,
or
you
can
also
refer
to
the
model
being
audited.
There.
D
D
C
I
just
read
a
link
where
it's
easy
to
find
like
the
these
owner
of
the
team,
for
that
particular
model
or
anything.
So
if
you
know
the
model,
we
can
just
find
the
owner
from
this
particular
page.