feat(drift-policies): add process based exceptions to drift policies #581
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
IgorEulalio
requested review from
kmvachhani,
rosenbloomb-sysdig,
ombellare,
miguelgordo,
ivanlysiuk-sysdig,
daniel-almeida,
jbainbridgesysdig,
yaminSapir and
chen-shmilovich-sysdig
as code owners
jbainbridgesysdig
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2025
kmvachhani
reviewed
Jan 9, 2025
miguelgordo
reviewed
Jan 10, 2025
IgorEulalio
force-pushed
the
feat/add-process-based-exceptions-to-drift-policies
branch
from
7fd6183 to
1c57569
Compare
Signed-off-by: Igor Eulalio <[email protected]>
IgorEulalio
force-pushed
the
feat/add-process-based-exceptions-to-drift-policies
branch
from
31b962b to
81ed4ca
Compare
miguelgordo
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2025
kmvachhani
deleted the
feat/add-process-based-exceptions-to-drift-policies
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Work for following issue:
#572