Fortinet FortiGate - Official Support for Capirca with Local-In Policy Support#364
Open
pc48m8n1 wants to merge 18 commits intogoogle:masterfrom
Open
Fortinet FortiGate - Official Support for Capirca with Local-In Policy Support#364pc48m8n1 wants to merge 18 commits intogoogle:masterfrom
pc48m8n1 wants to merge 18 commits intogoogle:masterfrom
Conversation
…modernizing outdated Python 2 code to Python 3 for improved compatibility, adding comprehensive documentation for clarity, and refactoring functions for enhanced structure and readability.
…th full code cleanup and improved consistency
|
@pc48m8n1 I'm working on another project (Nautobot Firewall App integration for FortiGate) and we would be interested in having this feature merged too! I'm pinging you since it seems your feature branch is out of-sync and has conflicts (nothing too big, see diff below). Hope someone at Google will take some time to look at your PR soon (do you know anyone to ping?). diff --cc capirca/lib/policy.py
index 72a47a6,6a943aa..0000000
--- a/capirca/lib/policy.py
+++ b/capirca/lib/policy.py
@@@ -1798,12 -1737,8 +1819,17 @@@ class VarType
DECAPSULATE = 67
SOURCE_SERVICE_ACCOUNTS = 68
VERSA_APPLICATION = 69
++<<<<<<< HEAD
+ TRAFFIC_CLASS = 70
+ NEXT_HOP_GROUP = 71
+ NEXT_INTERFACE = 72
+ POLICE_KBPS = 73
+ POLICE_BURST = 74
+ POLICE_PPS = 75
++=======
+ APPLICATION_ID = 70
+ INTERFACE = 71
++>>>>>>> pc48m8n1/fortigate-localin |
abhindes
suggested changes
May 13, 2025
Contributor
abhindes
left a comment
abhindes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the generator contribution, with the in-depth feature support being added.
Contributor
Author
|
Hi @abhindes, please review my latest commit for changes as per your request. |
pc48m8n1
force-pushed
the
fortigate-localin
branch
from
24a116c to
e258523
Compare
pc48m8n1
force-pushed
the
fortigate-localin
branch
from
174db81 to
94508e7
Compare
abhindes
reviewed
May 20, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
Hi @abhindes I have made the change to check the platform instead for local-in policy. |
abhindes
reviewed
May 23, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
@abhindes They have been removed. Please review. |
abhindes
reviewed
May 23, 2025
abhindes
reviewed
May 29, 2025
…e-capirca into fortigate-localin
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
PiperOrigin-RevId: 766267455
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
The Fortinet team is pleased to provide this contribution to Google Capirca. We welcome your guidance and suggestions to this contribution and are committed to the processes at hand.
We have only included three sample .POL files, per the observed standards and including the local-in policies for ipv4 and ipv6.
Thank you.