jamf_pro: fix instructions for Header Authentication configuration #11819
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
efd6
added
bugfix
🚀 Benchmarks reportPackage
|
| Data stream | Previous EPS | New EPS | Diff (%) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
inventory |
6666.67 | 5319.15 | -1347.52 (-20.21%) | 💔 |
To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport
💚 Build Succeeded
cc @efd6 |
|
|
Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations) |
kcreddy
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
The jamf documentation on webhooks states otherwise, but I see same issue being reported in few places and the user got it working with this updated setup in #11759 (comment)
|
The Jamf documentation is ambiguous, rather than contradictory to this change. |
|
Package jamf_pro - 0.1.2 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/jamf_pro/0.1.2/ |
harnish-crest-data
pushed a commit
to chavdaharnish/integrations
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
…lastic#11819) The current instructions state that the Jamf webhook should be configured with a JSON object withe the auth header name in "Authorization" and the auth token in "Token". According to Jamf, this is not correct. The headers are apparently constructed from the object such that the key is the header name and the value is the header value. Reflect this in the instructions.
harnish-crest-data
pushed a commit
to chavdaharnish/integrations
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
…lastic#11819) The current instructions state that the Jamf webhook should be configured with a JSON object withe the auth header name in "Authorization" and the auth token in "Token". According to Jamf, this is not correct. The headers are apparently constructed from the object such that the key is the header name and the value is the header value. Reflect this in the instructions.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proposed commit message
The current instructions state that the Jamf webhook should be configured with a JSON object withe the auth header name in "Authorization" and the auth token in "Token". According to Jamf, this is not correct. The headers are apparently constructed from the object such that the key is the header name and the value is the header value. Reflect this in the instructions.
Checklist
changelog.ymlfile.Author's Checklist
How to test this PR locally
Related issues
Screenshots