I created and pushed a change draft:
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ChangeDrafts/Accepted/sarif-v2.0-issue-396-special-locations-display-base.docx
I haven’t mentioned it for a while, but the provisional draft continues to be up to date with all the changes so far:
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ProvisionalDrafts/sarif-v2.0-csd02-provisional.docx
The HTML version is also now up to date:
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ProvisionalDrafts/sarif-v2.0-csd02-provisional.htm
This particular change draft has some formatting problems, which you can
ignore because I fixed them in the provisional draft. You might find it easier just to look at the two new sections in the
provisional draft:
- 3.14.16:
run.specialLocations property
- 3.25:
specialLocations object
Please take a look,
especially Jim. We still plan to open the CSD 2 ballot on Monday.
Thanks,
Larry
From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 9:08 AM
To: OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [sarif] #396: "Suggesting file path display base to viewers": Revised proposal
Importance: High
After Jim presented this proposal, there was a lot of follow-on discussion with Jim, Michael, and me. All agreed that it
is valuable to provide this hint to viewers; the discussion was about how to represent it:
-
As a reserved property name DISPLAYBASE in run.originalUriBaseIds.
-
As a property name SARIF_DISPLAYBASE in a reserved SARIF_-prefixed
"namespace" in run.originalUriBaseIds.
-
As a new property run.displayBase.
All of these had drawbacks:
-
#1 requires a reserved name, and requires that name to be treated specially (not actually used as a uriBaseId value
anywhere else in the log file). Also, it implies that if we added any other "special" values in the future, it would be a breaking change, since an implementer might have already used whatever value we chose.
-
#2 also requires a reserved name that can't actually be used as a uriBaseId elsewhere
in the log file. It has the advantage over #1 of allowing additional special values to be defined in a non-breaking way, at the cost of defining a mini-language on the property names.
-
#3 doesn't have the drawbacks of #1 or #2, but if we define other special URIs in future, we'd have a proliferation of properties on the run object.
@michaelcfanning and
I propose this alternative:
-
Define a property run.specialLocations with a single property displayBase whose
value is an artifactLocation. In future, additional specially treated locations can be defined in a non-breaking way by defining new properties
on run.specialLocations.
It has these advantages:
-
It doesn't require a reserved and specially treated uriBaseId value.
-
It doesn't require a namespace on uriBaseId values.
-
It allows new "special" locations to be defined in a non-breaking way.
-
It avoids a proliferation of properties on the run object.
It has this disadvantage:
-
It requires a schema change to define the new object.
@michaelcfanning and
I are willing to take the pain of the schema change to get the other benefits.
Thanks,
Larry