Proposal: Strict mode about django-scrubber

[lociii]

SGTM.
This would make it easier to get a proper start with scrubber or make it a really hardened anonymizer while still allowing for a more relaxed approach as currently offered.
@costela any thoughts from your side?

[lociii]

Great to hear from you again and thanks for the well-thought proposal.

We were discussing something similar in the company lately to use for GDPR anonymization. There it also only makes sense if we force our developers to think about how a field should be treated and not let them add one without defining the handling for it.
For larger systems, this will however impose a lot of work, so doing it optional definitely makes sense.

[GitRon]

Hi @lociii

thx for your feedback! We thought about two solutions. First, the strict mode will complain about all non-set fields (the scrubbers.Keep idea), Secondly, we thought about a "default" approach - meaning it for example will hash all undefined blacklisted field types unless you defined something more meaningful. So there is a quick fix for not exposing any data.

What do you think?

[costela]

yeah, SGTM too! 👍

[GitRon]

How should we proceed here?

[GitRon]

Hi @costela & @lociii - what do you think about my PR? 🙂

[lociii]

Looks good. Would you mind adding documentation about the new feature? 😄

[GitRon]

Sure, will do 👌

[GitRon]

@lociii The docs are already there but I ran a formatter so there are quite a few changes in there and the file is shown "closed" in the PR.

Fixed the pipeline - anything stopping the release now?

[GitRon]

@lociii Thx!