rewrite scfw preview doc#37761
Conversation
|
/review |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Automated review by Claude. AI-generated; verify before acting.
Overall the expanded Supply Chain Security section reads well and adds useful context. Found one typo (missing space) and a few style/readability nits inline.
Reviewed 434be9ea73afae1c3fc71dc3661af0b59e44679d — workflow run
Preview links (active after the
|
|
/review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Automated review by Claude. AI-generated; verify before acting.
Content reads cleanly and matches the surrounding section style. Two findings worth addressing before merge:
- The heading rename to
## Supply Chain Security (Preview)changes the Hugo-generated anchor ID and breaks the#supply-chain-securitylink in the bullet list near the top of this page. - The Guarddog product name is spelled differently than the existing reference in the SCA index (
GuardDog), and the bold styling is non-standard for tool names.
No blocking style violations from the Vale rules.
Reviewed 0386a1257ce6271bbba75ead756fbcc0f44283d5 — workflow run
|
janine-c
left a comment
janine-c
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops, didn't see that Cecilia had assigned this to herself! Just leaving this in case it helps
Co-authored-by: Janine Chan <64388808+janine-c@users.noreply.github.com>
janine-c
left a comment
janine-c
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey JB, thanks for submitting this and for the ping! I have some minor feedback for writing style and making the Preview link more visible, but no blockers. Let me know if I can do anything else to help!
| [8]: /security/code_security/secret_scanning/ | ||
| [9]: /security/code_security/secret_scanning/#set-up-secret-scanning | ||
| [10]: /security/code_security/iac_security | ||
| [11]: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Xqh5h1n3-jC7au2t30fdTq732dkTJqt_cb7C7T-AkPc |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you wind up using the callout I suggested, we don't need this anymore, since it doesn't use a reference-style link.
| In addition to protecting individual developer machines or CI pipelines, SCFW provides: | ||
|
|
||
| - Event observability to search, filter, and audit ALLOW, WARN, and BLOCK events across developer machines and CI systems in a unified event feed | ||
| - *(coming soon)* Centralized policy management to define org-wide block lists, allow lists, and behavioral rules directly from the Datadog AppSec UI | ||
| - *(coming soon)* Coverage reporting to track which developers and repositories are protected, identify gaps, and measure your organization's supply chain security posture over time |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| In addition to protecting individual developer machines or CI pipelines, SCFW provides: | |
| - Event observability to search, filter, and audit ALLOW, WARN, and BLOCK events across developer machines and CI systems in a unified event feed | |
| - *(coming soon)* Centralized policy management to define org-wide block lists, allow lists, and behavioral rules directly from the Datadog AppSec UI | |
| - *(coming soon)* Coverage reporting to track which developers and repositories are protected, identify gaps, and measure your organization's supply chain security posture over time | |
| In addition to protecting individual developer machines or CI pipelines, SCFW provides event observability to search, filter, and audit `ALLOW`, `WARN`, and `BLOCK` events across developer machines and CI systems in a unified event feed. |
As a best practice, we avoid documenting future features; in case of unforeseen delays, having this information in the docs can cause liability issues. We'll be happy to add these in when they get added to the Preview!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm. I understand but we also want future customer to know what we are working on to improve this product.
Is there a way here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I understand; I think it just doesn't fit very well into the docs, unfortunately. I've seen that sort of stuff in Preview pages and communicated directly with customers, and I think that's fine; it's just that our aim as a team is to try to make the docs as source of truth for current behaviour, and making promises about the future can muddy that. Sorry it's not a better answer for you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this a blocker or is that ok to ship like this ? keeping in mind that we should ship these features in the next 3-4months
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry about my late reply; I was on PTO! Yeah, that's quite a long timeframe, and release plans can change quite a bit in that time, so we don't want to make any promises to be on the safe side. No worries, I just created #37986 to take care of it, so you don't have to do anything else. 🙂
Co-authored-by: Janine Chan <64388808+janine-c@users.noreply.github.com>
5 participants
What does this PR do? What is the motivation?
We are improving the Supply Chain Firewall product and we need to update the public documentation to show what's new
Merge readiness
For Datadog employees:
<name>/<description>convention and include the forward slash (/). If you've already created your PR with an incorrect branch name, please rename your branch and open a fresh PR./reviewto run an automated check that catches common issues before a Documentation team member reviews your PR.AI assistance
Additional notes