Abduh

@krtkvrm is there any specific reason you prefer that approach? wouldn't that approach be more complex with shield use case?

@bsushmith would you pick this issue soon?

Need to hold this until v0.3.x is stable enough

This can be reviewed

Is there any issue related for this PR? @niharbansal02

Usage history (access logs) data collection will be discussed in detail in #265

@krtkvrm for the PR prefix, is it a `feat:` or a `fix:` ? also, should we create a new issue and link the issue to this PR?

if we use `active_in_provider: true/false`, do we assume (only track) if provider only have two states of activeness `active` & `inactive` and ignore other possible statuses (if any)?

For this we will move from gorm and we can optimize the way we fetch data from the DB (utilize join, introduce index, etc)

@singhvikash11 can you please explain the scenario of it? when we need to do such case?