Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

QA checks through API #2704

Closed
jc-harrison opened this issue Jun 11, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6471
Closed

QA checks through API #2704

jc-harrison opened this issue Jun 11, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6471
Labels
enhancement New feature or request FlowAPI Issues related to the FlowKit API FlowETL

Comments

@jc-harrison
Copy link
Member

FlowETL populates the etl.post_etl_queries with some simple stats on the ingested data, which are very useful for QA checking. It would be useful to be able to access these QA checks via the API.

@jc-harrison jc-harrison added enhancement New feature or request FlowAPI Issues related to the FlowKit API FlowETL labels Jun 11, 2020
@greenape
Copy link
Member

Yes.

What I'm wondering is if there's a case for supporting allowing people access to only a subset of the qa check results, either by the type of check, or the data being checked.

@jc-harrison
Copy link
Member Author

Hmm, yes. Controlling access by type of check would be the trickier of the two (at least in terms of auto-generating the permission scopes, because the list of types of check would need to be inferred from FlowETL), but there may be situations where that's desirable. Not sure about access control by event type - we don't currently support restricting anything else by event type, but that's not to say there isn't a case for adding it.

@Thingus Thingus mentioned this issue Mar 20, 2024
8 tasks
@mergify mergify bot closed this as completed in #6471 Apr 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request FlowAPI Issues related to the FlowKit API FlowETL
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants