Shivani Bhardwaj
Shivani Bhardwaj
> @inashivb is there a `skip` keyword for Suricata-verify ? There is one but seems like it is 1. bound to features (e.g. https://github.com/OISF/suricata-verify/blob/master/tests/filestore-v2.3-fserror/test.yaml#L7) or 2. skipping an entire test...
Replaced w #8205
All comments addressed in https://github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/10511
> It required a rule update in various QA/CI systems. Not sure what the status is. Rules in QA lab were updated.. Only after that QA started to pass..
> Seems we can gain a lot by optimizing the way the whitelist grouping is happening  This is with the very large test ruleset. Think I have an idea....
Replaced w https://github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/10482
> because of wrong format for SV_BRANCH in the description. Yes. You don't need to write markdown for the link to render in the format OISF/suricat..., that is done automagically...
> Hi there, I removed the link because as all checks were passing in the SV PR, it seemed to me that that PR could be merged even if its...
> I definitely missed that. Sorry for the noise! Don't worry. It was fairly hidden. Wondering if a new test is skipped that should be somehow flagged in the CI.
This one is blocked bc: - I need to make a minimal reproducer of the pcap that causes the massive stats deviations and, - confirm/deny whether this PR is correct...