Add extra fields and indices to audit tables, based on configuration

[WhatsOn]

This pull request allows users to create extra columns in their audit tables. This is useful when You need to group audit events with an external parameter for easy retrieval later on.

Adds the options "extra_fields" and "extra_indices" to the Configuration object:

new Configuration([
    'table_prefix' => '',
    'table_suffix' => '_audit',
    'ignored_columns' => [],
    'entities' => [],
    'viewer' => true,
    'extra_fields' => [
        'extra_column' => [
            'type' => 'string',
            'options' => ['notnull' => true]
        ]
    ],
    'extra_indices' => ['extra_column' => null]
]);

Adds the ability to query the audit table on the configured extra_indices via filters, eg.

$query->addFilter(new SimpleFilter('extra_column', '123abc'));

The extra column values can be set using an EventSubscriber:

class AuditEventSubscriber implements EventSubscriberInterface
{
    public static function getSubscribedEvents(): array
    {
        return [
            LifecycleEvent::class => 'onAuditEvent',
        ];
    }

    public function onAuditEvent(LifecycleEvent $event): LifecycleEvent
    {
        $payload = $event->getPayload();
        $entity = $this->entityManager->getRepository($payload['entity'])->find($payload['object_id']);

        $payload['extra_column'] = "fancy_value_123";

        $event->setPayload($payload);
        return $event;
    }
}

[DamienHarper]

@WhatsOn Thanks for the contribution! I'll have a closer look at it asap.

[Swahjak]

@DamienHarper do you still plan on taking a look at this? Would be greatly appreciated. For example; we're looking to use this to let users also add an (optional) comment as to why a certain change was made.

[DamienHarper]

@Swahjak @WhatsOn sure, it's still on my roadmap but I have to figure out some "issues" or edge cases before merging this feature (eg. if a user can add new "columns" from config file, he probably can also remove them, so how does the audit:schema:update command should behave? what to do with the data previously recorded in these new "old" columns?)

[Swahjak]

@DamienHarper completely understand and not trying to rush you. Just wanted to know if this is still something that you would consider merging (at some point).

You make some valid points about the updating / removing of fields. My initial thought would be to only allow columns to be added through configuration and update / remove would be something the user has to take care of through custom migrations. Although doctrine would / might be able to manage this there would always be that edge case. Maybe this shouldn't be a configuration at all, but just a 'hook' that allows others to fiddle with the columns (and inserts), that way the responsibility does not lie with the library / bundle but with the user.

[Alarich]

@Swahjak @WhatsOn sure, it's still on my roadmap but I have to figure out some "issues" or edge cases before merging this feature (eg. if a user can add new "columns" from config file, he probably can also remove them, so how does the audit:schema:update command should behave? what to do with the data previously recorded in these new "old" columns?)

Suggestion: Never remove a field that was not part of the core auditor field.
Developers can handle the removal of their own custom fields. It would just be a disclaimer in the documentation for custom fields.

This feature is way too useful to not include.

[kasatria-fong]

Hi, a dumb question: this pull is not inside master yet, right ?

[Alarich]

Hi, a dumb question: this pull is not inside master yet, right ?

It is not.
We're using the feature in a separate fork, so far no issues.

[etiennecotin]

Hello, have you plan to merge this feature soon ?

[DamienHarper]

@etiennecotin Well, it depends on what you consider as "soon" :) It won't happen until 2023 though.

[etiennecotin]

@DamienHarper Thx for the answer :)
I will try to find a solution until the release of this feature

[joerndyherrn]

@DamienHarper could you devote yourself to this again? :)

[CaptainPerox]

@DamienHarper Is there an update for this feature? :-)

[mcapinha-mxp]

+1 on this one as we were discussing extending the auditor in this way.
Our use case is for adding additional context, as we have a multi-tenant DB, and recording relantionship information (as some records can be deleted and its hard do keep track of those).

[Izakun]

@DamienHarper Hi, have you a plan to merge this feature soon :-) ? We are in 2023 ^^

It won't happen until 2023 though.

Thank's

[wouter-toppy]

@WhatsOn @Swahjak @DamienHarper See #187