cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Ask a Question
turbobobi
Explorer
Member since: ‎04-01-2022
‎04-07-2022
Community Statistics
Posts 4
Solutions 0
Karma Given 1
Karma Received 0
Member Since ‎04-01-2022
Activity Feed
View All

Re: Need clarifications on binary file checks done...

by in All Apps and Add-ons
‎04-06-2022 08:55 AM
‎04-06-2022 08:55 AM
It's interesting to note that I reached this use case by 2 different approaches: Calling the AppInspect CLI on my app's source code dir Calling the AppInspect CLI on a package I produced using slim (from the Packaging Toolkit) I see that the README.txt file gets updated automatically with these binary file exclusions in 2 separate use cases: When I call the splunk package app command When I package my app using the AddOn Builder app ... View more

Need clarifications on binary file checks done by ...

by in All Apps and Add-ons
‎04-06-2022 08:23 AM
‎04-06-2022 08:23 AM
Our addon app has several binary files in its bin/ directory. The check_for_binary_files_without_source_code check fails for them, but I discovered 2 things: 1. When packaging the addon using the Addon Builder app, the README.txt file gets modified with extra content like the following: # Binary File Declaration /opt/splunk/var/data/tabuilder/package/TA-luminar-iocs-and-leaked-credentials/bin/ta_luminar_iocs_and_leaked_credentials/aob_py3/pvectorc.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so: this file does not require any source code Having these segments in the README.txt file causes the check to omit the given binary file. 2. I tried looking for details about this README.txt behavior, but the only thing I was able to find was an old fork of what appears to be the code of the AppInspectchecks: https://github.com/splunkdevabhi/appinspect/blob/master/splunk_appinspect/checks/check_cloud_simple_app.py In particular the conditional logic related to this behavior is in lines 1827-1852. Is this use case for binary file descriptions in a README.txt file described in the official documentation? If not, can someone please add it? ... View more
Labels

Re: Add-on Builder vs AppInspect vs slim. Which is...

by in All Apps and Add-ons
‎04-01-2022 07:53 AM
‎04-01-2022 07:53 AM
Thank you for the reply, @richgalloway ! So, is it safe to assume that the validations of the Add-on Builder are a some sort of a subset of the validations of AppInspect? ... View more

Add-on Builder vs AppInspect vs slim. Which is the...

by in All Apps and Add-ons
‎04-01-2022 04:26 AM
‎04-01-2022 04:26 AM
I am investigating how to have a continuous build process for our Splunk addon and I saw that there are 3 options: slim -a cli tool that is a part of  Package apps with the Packaging Toolkit | Documentation | Splunk Developer Program AppInspect - a part of Validate quality of Splunk apps | Documentation | Splunk Developer Program Add-on Builder - Install the Add-on Builder - Splunk Documentation slim gave me very little output and it wasn't clear what sort of validations it was running. app-inspect is very configurable and provides rich output so I'm pretty happy with it. However, I got a recommendation to trust the Add-on Builder's validations. Unfortunately, apart from using some Selenium manipulations to touch the Splunk UI, I wasn't able to identify a way to automatically call it validation logic from an HTTP API or a cli. Finally, the output of AppInspect & the Add-on Builder differs - I'm currently checking why this is so. Perhaps the validations are completely different ... So my questions to the community are: 1. What is the best approach to validate a Splunk add-on? 2. How would you recommend automating at least the validation part of the process? Thank you so much in advance! ... View more
Labels
Contact Me
Online Status
Offline
Date Last Visited
‎04-07-2022 04:30 PM
Karma given to
View All