[PATCH v3 0/3] Store the 'actor' responsible for events

[Stephen Finucane]

On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 19:30 +0100, Johan Herland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:29 AM Daniel Axtens <dja at axtens.net> wrote:
> > Johan Herland <johan at herland.net> writes:
> > 
> > > The V4L project (https://patchwork.linuxtv.org) uses patch states and
> > > delegates extensively to track progress. We want an audit log to keep
> > > track of the changes made to these patch fields. The Event model already
> > > records this information, but leaves out one crucial detail: which
> > > maintainer/user actually updated the patch state/delegate. The need for
> > > this enhancement is also documented in Issue #73.
> > > 
> > > This patch series adds an 'actor' field to the Event model, and - for
> > > applicable events - stores the user responsible for that event (i.e. the
> > > current/active user, if any) into this field.
> > > 
> > > This applies to the following events:
> > >  - patch-created
> > >  - patch-completed
> > >  - patch-state-changed
> > >  - patch-delegated
> > >  - series-completed
> > >  - check-created
> > > 
> > 
> > I keep going back and forth about the sets of events. I still think
> > patch-created is an odd event to try to audit, but OTOH I think setting
> > a precedent of including every event in the audit trail will make it
> > easier to (remember to) extend this in future - I'm particularly
> > thinking about the upcoming relations stuff, which we will definitely
> > want to include in the audit trail.
> > 
> > Stephen, what are your thoughts?
> 
> Ping?

Sorry, I was on vacation and have been swamped with $dayjob for the
past few weeks. Only catching up now.

I'm a little confused with patch two. You've said there that only the
'cover-created' or 'series-created' events don't have an 'actor', but
I'm not sure how 'patch-created', 'patch-completed' or 'series-
completed' could possibly have one. It's not currently possible for a
user to manually create a patch, cover letter or series via the web UI
or APIs, so these will always be created by the parsemail management
command which means a user clearly isn't doing something. How were you
expecting this to work?

FWIW, I have no real issue with exposing the 'actor' field on all
events, even if it's useless for some of them. I just want to make sure
you're not going to be suprised by IRL not mapping to the mental model
you have of things.

Stephen