PolicyRules relationship change from M2M to ForeignKey about nautobot-app-firewall-models HOT 7 CLOSED

I meant index moving to PolicyRule, right now it is in the M2M releationship.

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

Adding in a couple of discussion bullet points:

• Easier creation of the mapping between Policy and PolicyRule - currently you have to know the name of the PolicyRule you want to assign to a given Policy, if it were a foreign key then this mental overhead could be saved
• With #53 the cases where you do in fact need the same PolicyRule twice (or even more often) can be addressed with a simple cloning of that PolicyRule. I see that this is duplicating data in the database which should normally be avoided, but it also allows these two instances of that PolicyRule to potentially diverge from each other

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

• Should the FK be a required field? (create policy first)
• The weight would switch to being on the PR model not the through model
• Clone to make up for the loss of reuse of PRs?

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

1/3 yes
2 first weight or index? For weight I would have thought on the policy model, but I suspect you have thought of that and it doesn’t work out.

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

How about having the following:

• weight on the Policy model to express in which order they should be applied (if there are multiple policies with overlapping zones for the same device, such as a general, default one and a device-specific)
• index on the PolicyRule model to express their order inside of the Policy

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

yea, index to PolicyRule

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.

Resolved by #80

from nautobot-app-firewall-models.