►
Description
C
B
B
Last
week
and
they've
been
some
async
discussions,
so
the
items
have
been
striked
through
essentially
are
no
longer
a
problem,
but
I'll
try
to
summarize
and
then
jump
into
the
items
that
are
still
up
for
this
session.
So
initially
when
we
started
this
the
way
we
approached
the
front
end
and
the
back
end.
The
idea
was
that
we
had
this
front
end
this
front-end
back-end
contract.
B
So
in
theory,
as
long
as
we
conform
to
the
spec,
we
should
be
okay.
Now
there
were
a
little
bit
of
some
bugs
around
editing
an
existing
one,
because
there
were
some
discrepancy
with
the
spec
in
terms
of
how
the
front
end
and
backend
was
implemented.
Alexander
put
up
two
merch
requests
to
kind
of
fix
that
my
apologies
I
have
to
turn
off
an
alarm
real,
quick.
B
B
B
The
one
thing
that
is
missing
and
I
think
is
only
two
things
that
are
missing
from
the
front.
End
are
the
following
right
now,
it
doesn't
seem
like
on
Master.
There
are
any
validations
for
this
configuration,
so
I
could
so
I
could
basically
go
create
a
policy
and
not
select
anything,
and
we
don't
my
understanding
and
Alexander
at
least
confirmed.
This
is
that
when
we
select
options
from
the
policy
configure
configuration
here
from
the
UI,
the
validation
happens
back
end.
B
B
You
get
things
like
this.
This
is
what
is
currently
on
in
production
for
security
scan.
We
don't
have
any
of
this
validation
happening
for
license
scanning,
so
I
could
just
save
a
blank
configuration
like
this.
You
know
with
nothing
set
so
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
blocker
for
Sam
or
not,
but
it
is
something
that
I
don't
know.
If
we
have
an
issue
for
I,
don't
know
if
you're
as
a
team
has
any
feedback
on
the
state
of
Fields
validations.
A
Yep
I,
we
have
the
scheme
updated,
but
we
haven't
added
anything
like
Min
length
in
terms
of
like
similar,
what
we,
what
we
did
first
kind
of
kind
of
result,
policies
I,
believe
we
can.
Okay,
instead
of
creating
NMR
I'll,
just
I,
can
create
an
issue.
I
could
create
an
MR
actually
to
to
add
those,
because
that's
rather
more
thing
and
I
already
have
that
file
open.
So
so
this
shouldn't
be
a
problem:
okay,
okay,
but.
C
B
Okay,
cool
the
only
other
thing
from
front
end
was
again
sorry.
There's
a
lot
of
async
discussion
here,
but
basically
the
summary
of
what
Alexander
was
saying
is
like
the
two
issues
he
found
provided
that
the
two
merge
request.
Land
will
be
okay,
so
that's
I'm
kind
of
paraphrasing
here.
The
only
other
thing
that
I
need
to
follow
it
was
sand
and
and
design
is
that
when
we
edit
an
existing
policy,
we
kind
of
have
the
side
drawer
kind
of
pop
out.
The
text
copy
here
doesn't
account
for
license
scans.
B
The
original
epic
and
design
issue
don't
have
any
reference
there
and
we
pinged,
Sam
and
Alexander
had
some
thoughts
on
the
wording,
but
that's
the
only
to
summarize,
the
only
two
outstanding
things
is
from
the
front
end
is
like
no
field
validation
and
then
updating
the
text
copy
in
the
side
drawer
on
our
end,
I
think
that
seems
to
be
it.
You
were
able
to
create
the
merge
request
and
I.
Guess
passing
it
over
to
you,
your
folks,
all
right
to
the
back
end.
A
C
A
C
B
A
C
B
Okay,
yeah:
do
you
I
guess?
Are
we
shipping
this
turned
on
for
self-managed
and.com,
because
just
FYI
just
we
need
to
allow
some
time.
We
probably
want
to
prep
the
correct
Mr
ahead
of
time
for
the
feature
flag
toggle
for
front
end
is:
are
we
using
the
same
flag
for
front
end
and
back
end
got
the
last
thing?
Okay,
so
it's
like
we
need
to
have
the
Mr
product
and
ready
to
go.
Is
my
recommendation,
because
what
I've
seen
happen
in
the
past
was
like
We'll
turn
it
on
on
production.
B
C
Yeah
I
think
it
can
be
much
unless
we
don't
have
any.
You
know
vast
changes
in
the
review
comments,
but
as
it
stands,
the
database
Mr
is
ready
for
review
already.
I
just
have
one
question
about
the
thing
that
I
asked
in
the
issue.
If
that
changes
a
bit,
there
will
be
a
small
change
on
the
DVD
database
Mr,
and
apart
from
that,
that
is
good
for
review.
Maybe
I'll
push
it
for
review
already
and
the
other
service
changes.
C
A
Yeah,
so
what
I
wanted
to
do
and
what
is
to
have
those
merged,
but
if
not
I'll
still
use
some
local.
My
my
local
branch
and
and
test
all
those
changes
and
and
by
the
end
of
the
week,
if
we'll
have
everything
merged
I
would
like
to
at
least
have
it
enabled
on
staging
so
early
next
week,
we're
going
to
enable
it
on
production
on
Monday,
for
example,
and
and
then
by
by
Wednesday.
We
should
have
like
the
Mr
with
default
flag
turn
with
the
future
plug
turn
on
by
default.
A
A
B
Well,
thanks
for
the
discussion,
I
had
one
follow-up
thing
for
about
field.
Validations
I
saw
that
you
wrote
well
well,
there's
not
a
lot
of
different.
The
the
for
licensed
scan
results,
there's
not
a
lot
of
ways.
The
user
can
enter
malformed
data
because
they're
kind
of
set
drop,
downs,
I
think
the
validation
should
be
that
they're
defined
like
not
empty,
so
that,
like
not
null
or
not,
you
know
empty.
A
B
A
B
I
think,
speaking
to
Alexander,
he
said
that
we
did
have
like
front
end
validation
a
little
bit
for
the
security
scam
policies,
but
he
said
it
caused.
He
says
something:
I
don't
want
to
misquote
him
here,
but
there's
a
bug
with
that.
It
was
better
the
actual
verification
of
the
the
yaml
itself.
Parse
was
happening,
ideally
in
back
end,
and
we
just
so
whatever
errors
in
the
alert
at
the
top
right.
What
do
you
think?
Okay.
A
Sounds
good
so
we'll
just
take
care
of
Jason's
keyman
and
that
will
solve
solve
the
problem
for
both
parties:
okay,
alrighty
alrighty.
Thanks
for
the
update,
Ronaldo
fixed
update,
it's
actually
anything
else,
we'd
like
to
talk
about
nope,
okay,
so
we're
good
to
go.
Let's
look
for
those
Mr
Smurfs
I
will
prepare
what's
needed.
Additionally,
I'll
prove
I'll,
update
the
documentation
as
well
so
yeah
at
least
how
we
can
help
and
and
yeah
and
let's
hope
to
get
it
merged
by
the
end
of
this
week.
We'll
spend
some
time
or
testing
it.