►
From YouTube: Compliance Weekly 2023-04-04
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
A
B
So
yeah
a
number
of
these
I
know
a
lot
of
things
are
related
to
audit
events
and
now
that
I
think
about
it.
This
is
a
good
time
to
mention
that,
with
with
a
new
verification
process,
we
we
have
the
we
have
put
the
initial
developer
and
the
verifying
developers
assigned
to
each
issue
so
I'm
wondering
if
we're
going
to
get
into
a
situation
where
someone
shows
as
being
assigned
to
an
issue
that
maybe
wasn't
the
person
principally
working
on
it.
B
Maybe
it
might
have
been
the
verifier,
because
what
have
I
know
that
who's
zaifa
recently
closed
a
number
of
issues
that
were
related
to
audit
events,
because
they
were
already
completed
as
part
of
some
other
issue
being
done
in
our
refactoring
process.
So
what
he
did
was
I
think
he
just
reassigned
those
to
me
and
then
immediately
closed
them.
So
there
may
be
a
number
of
those
showing
up
in
this
column,
but
I
didn't
see
one
immediately,
but
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that's
been
going
on
behind
the
scenes
there.
B
A
Okay,
yeah
I
know
that's
on
the
agenda,
so
we
can
get
to
that
next.
The
next
was
the
update,
MDC
text
for
stairs
checks
and
this
we
actually
sat
down
with
Camellia
and
went
through
the
design
and
decided
that
the
citizen
actually
required
how
the
stage
so
just
closed
it
off
now.
Next
we
have
Michael
Close
Define.
The
order
I've
been
to
type
schema
four
one,
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven
I'll
move
this
one.
A
B
Was
one
that
that
harsmart
submitted
this
was
bringing
up
the
issue
of
where
we
were
going
to
move
a
lot
of
the
helper
code
that
is
currently
associated
with
audit
event
service
and
finding
somewhere
under
the
auditor
namespace
to
put
that
for
the
particular
example
in
that
issue
I,
we
had
some
discussion
on
this
and
I
tentatively
close
this,
because
at
the
moment
we
aren't
strictly
refactoring
that
code
anywhere
else.
B
We're
just
writing
the
new
audit
code
to
basically
produce
the
same
result
without
having
to
rely
on
a
helper,
so
we're
basically
factoring
it
out,
rather
than
finding
somewhere
else
to
move
it.
So
so
I
did
close
that
issue.
Probably
broader
refactor
discussion
will
happen.
After
all,
the
principal
work
on
audit
events
are
done,
but
for
now
I
think
that
one
is
an
odd
issue.
A
Okay,
cool
the
next
one
was
the
audit
event
performance
limits.
So
customer
has
closed
this
because
it's
been
promoted
to
an
epic
and
there's
been
four
or
five
issues
created
underneath
it
to
start
the
work
into
the
implementation
planning.
So
it's
a
good
stick
there
and
the
next
was
the
update
to
the
compliance
violation,
queries
to
use
denormalized
columns.
So
this
is
the
final
part
of
the
optimizing,
the
compliance
violation,
query
and
I.
Think
in
here.
A
A
So
there's
three
more
of
the
audit
event
type
schema
that
Michael
completed,
which
is
awesome
and
then
the
final
one
that
was
closed
here
is
developed
guidance
for
audit
events
for
different
tiers
and
just
to
confirm
that
Derek
has
confirmed
that
we're
just
going
to
use
exceptions
at
the
moment.
While
we've
got
audit
events
in
different
tiers
and
pricing
tiers
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
A
A
B
I,
don't
think
I
had
anything
specifically
able
to
discussed
right
now,
so
there
is.
There
is
one
that
there
is
one
in-depth
issue
that
I
have
that's
actually
comprised
of
a
few
different
than
Mars.
One
of
them
might
be
in
review.
This
is
another
thing
that
I
didn't
think
of
when
I
split
that
at
a
different
course,
I'm
trying
to
get
all.
A
A
Oh,
the
other
one
was
the
apply
compliance
framework
report.
I
know
earlier,
has
actually
completed
this
and
it's
been
merged.
So
I'll
move
this
into
verification.
We
can
get
that
verified
and
closed
off.
A
Surprise
area
we're
not
fine,
so
we
need
to
get
all
those
emails
closed
before
we
can
work
on
that
one.
So
that's
still
blocked
and
the
integration
of
the
clients
violation,
Branch
filter
with
earlier
I,
not
sure.
Oh,
this
is
actually
still
blocked
on
the
black
back
end
to
use
those
compliance
violation,
query
updates,
so
the
updates
have
been
made
from
we
need
up
now,
use
it
in
the
back
end
and
then
we
can
update
the
front
end.
A
Any
in
solution,
validation
or
planning
breakdown
that
you
want
to
discuss
all
right
and
finally,
in
Cornelius,
not
on
the
call
so
can't
talk
through
the
design.
That's
right
share
my
screen,
then.
B
You
know
yeah
I,
the
number
of
these
up
and
I
something
we
have
a
little
more
a
group
here
to
talk
through
that,
but
I'll
I'll
be
sure
to
share
this
with
everyone
in
slack.
I
think
the
main
thing
that
I
wanted
to
go
through
is
I.
I
still
need
to
go
through
and
see
where
we
are
on
individual
issues.
B
I've
had
to
shuffle
some
issues
around
slightly
because
we're
running
into
things
where
certain
classes
and
controllers
were
doing
audit
events,
but
did
not
have
any
specs
of
running
to
one
situation
there.
So
now
we
were
in
a
case
where
we
also
need
to
write
to
Specs,
so
we
can
test
in
audit
events
and
that
increases
the
weight
of
those
and
complexity
of
those
issues
significantly
so
I.
B
We
do
have
a
fall
over
epic
for
things
that
we
we
put
certain
classes
in
there
for
things
that
we
weren't
sure
we
were
going
to
get
to
in
q1.
So
I
attentively
marked
it
there
just
so
we
know
that
it's
something
that's
that
needs
to
be
done,
but
yet
generally
this
is.
This
is
one
thing,
that's
kind
of
dragging
us
back
a
little
bit
and
I
mainly
just
wanted
to
put
it
out
there
in
case
we
could
get
a
few
more.
A
B
It
maybe
someone
could
work
specifically
on
on
sorting
out
some
of
the
trickier
issues
with
testing
things
like
sample
and
two-factor
authentication
locally,
because
again
it's
just
it's
just
a
very
time,
consuming
setup
to
do
and.
B
B
Yeah
right
now,
I
just
pointed
out
those
two
specific
issues.
I
think
the
main
thing
that
I
will
need
direct
help
with
is
testing
and
verification
of
some
of
the
authentication
issues,
because
it's
I
I
just
personally
in
a
little
bit
of
quite
a
bit
of
a
time
crunch
right
now
with
the
Security
Group
things
so
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
make
sure
that
all
the
bases
are
covered.
B
Basically,
but
yeah,
I'm,
just
I,
just
kind
of
wrote
everything
out
there,
I
won't
get
it
up
in
slide
too.
Just
so
everyone
can
see,
but
that's
yeah,
that's
that's!
Basically
it
okay.
A
Yeah
and
I'll
be
seeing
it
with,
or
do
you
want
to
discuss
your
FYI
question
as
well
yeah
the
one
quick
question
I
was
also
going
to
ask
for.
B
The
group
is
I
know
that
our
verification
process
is
fairly
new.
We've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
on
it,
leading
up
to
this.
The
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
get
a
little
bit
more
input
on,
because
this
is
coming
up
a
lot
with
Autumn
events
specifically,
and
that
is
how
do
we
want
to
handle
things
that
are
not
easily
testable
in
staging
or
production
and
I'm.
B
Thinking
of
things
specifically
like,
like
testing
like
group
sample
modifications,
things
that
we
probably
don't
have
access
to
in
production,
because
we're
we're
making
updates
to
a
lot
of
instant
instance
level.
Audit
events
and
I
I've
seen
that
come
up
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
know
whose
responsibility
is
to
say
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
can
verify
this
in
production.
So
you
know
how
do
you
want
to
do
it?
A
Yeah
good
discussion,
actually
my
two
cents
would
be
it
should
be
on
the
dri
engineer
who
originally
you
know,
has
worked
on
the
issue
to
make
it
outline
exactly
what
the
verification
steps
are
and
if
there
are
none
Make
That
explicit
around
how
to
check
like
you
know,
ensure
that
certain
parts
aren't,
even
if
you
can't
check
that
exact
thing
make
sure
that
certain
parts
around
this
that
system
are
still
working,
but
maybe
it
might
be
worth
just
asking
and
slack
at
the
compliance
group
or
the
or
even
create
an
issue.
A
Just
to
start.
The
discussion
within
our
group,
folder,
okay,.