RE: [sarif] Cluster of logicalLocation-related changes

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

This is now done. As I’ve done a few times before, I took a concept that occurred in a several places in the spec, and stated in in one place: the new Section 3.24.2, “Logical location naming rules”. All the other sections of the spec to which those rules apply (for example, the property names in the run.logicalLocations dictionary, and the values of location.fullyQualifiedLogicalName) now just refer to the new section.

 

I merged the changes into the provisional draft. To see the change bars, look at the change draft:

 

Documents/ChangeDrafts/Accepted/sarif-v2.0-issues-143-170-logicalLocations.docx

 

Again, feel free to suggest editorial improvements.

 

Thanks,

Larry

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:37 PM
To: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sarif] Cluster of logicalLocation-related changes

 

This morning at TC #18, we approved the change draft for Issue #143, “Add 'returnType', 'parameter' and 'variable' to logical location kind”, with two changes:

 

1. localVariable => variable
2. Change the statement that logical locations SHALL conform to language syntax to a SHOULD, and explain why.

 

It turns out that #2 is closely related to another issue that I was going to address editorially: Issue #170, “logicalLocation.name: text and examples are unclear/wrong”. It’s actually hard to do #2 without the cleanups I planned for Issue #170.

 

So here’s what I’m going to do:

 

1. Rename the change draft from
   
   sarif-v2.0-issue-143-more-logicalLocation-kinds.docx
   
   to
   
   sarif-v2.0-issues-143-170-logicalLocations.docx
2. Address both the substantive issues #1 and #2 above, and the editorial issues for Issue #170, in that same change draft.
3. Merge the changes from sarif-v2.0-issues-143-170-logicalLocations.docx into the provisional draft (because we’ve already voted to approve the substantive changes).
4. Inform you when I’ve done that, so you can look at the change bars in the change draft.

 

I’ll follow up on this thread when I’ve done that. After that, feel free to comment on the wording of the substantive changes, or on the editorial changes. I’ll incorporate any such feedback at editorial discretion.

 

Thanks,

Larry