Follow-up from "Use read permissions for DAST GraphQL types"
The following discussion from !53317 (merged) should be addressed:
-
@philipcunningham started a discussion: (+1 comment) question
one thing that strikes me about this is that it's a bit of shame that the naming diverges for the two symbols. do you think it'd be worth renaming
read_on_demand_scans
toread_demand_dast_scan
in a follow-up merge request?