RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more

["Larry Golding \(Comcast\)" <larrygolding@comcast.net>]

Also, I would add a new permittted value analysisToolLogFile in file.roles.

 

From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:41 PM
To: 'sarif@lists.oasis-open.org' <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
Importance: High

 

As you know, both run and result have a property attachments of type attachment[]. result also has conversionProvenance of type attachment[]. An attachment is nothing but a fileLocation plus a description. The spec says this about description:

 

An attachment object SHOULD contain a property named description whose value is a message object (§3.9) describing the role played by the attachment.

 

The “role”, huh? Be we just added a roles property to the file object! So perhaps the file object is also the natural place for description. Then we don’t need the attachment object, and instead we have:

 

file

  =role

  +description:message

run:

  ~attachments:fileLocation[]

 

result:

  ~attachments:fileLocation[]

  ~conversionProvenance:fileLocation[]

 

-attachment

 

I stumbled on this as I was starting to write the words for Issue #134,  “conversion.analysisToolLogFileLocation should be an array”, which made me look at result.conversionProvenance and wonder why it was an attachment[].

 

If we agree, I’d like to do this in the same change draft as the one I’m writing for #134, since they both touch result.conversionProvenance.

 

Thoughts?

Larry