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

Add support for handling different engines/sources of Policy Reports #3

Open
Jonas-Beck opened this issue Jan 17, 2025 · 3 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@Jonas-Beck
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, the Backstage plugin exposes the EntityKyvernoPolicyReportsContent component that uses the Kyverno source to display Kyverno policies related to the specific Backstage component. We should create additional components for other sources like Trivy and Falco, allowing users to integrate these tools with their Backstage instance if they use them.

This would also make it easier to change the view based on the best way to present policies related to each source.

Additionally, it might make sense to make the component naming more consistent when adding more sources. Suggested naming conventions could be:

  • EntityKyvernoPoliciesContent
  • EntityTrivyPoliciesContent
  • EntityFalcoPoliciesContent
@Jonas-Beck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Component naming has been updated in #4

@Jonas-Beck Jonas-Beck self-assigned this Jan 27, 2025
@Jonas-Beck
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Jaxwood Do you think we should create an EntityCustomPoliciesContent component that would allow users to define their own sources and display the policies using a standard view? users could then create an issue if they think that a specific component should be created for their source and what it should look like.

The reason I wanted to create separate components for each source was because I thought it would make sense to display policies for some sources differently and potentially include information related to the source, like links to documentation.

@Jaxwood
Copy link
Collaborator

Jaxwood commented Feb 3, 2025

@Jonas-Beck sounds like a good idea 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants