OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sarif message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [sarif] RE: New TC comment: Issue #429, missing constraint


If the committee unanimously agrees that no reasonable implementation could be impacted by this change, we can accept it as non-material. If anyone objects, no big deal; we can just revert the change.


On 2019-07-07 20:27, Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) wrote:
Thanks David. The question is whether we consider this change editorial or substantive. In my current thinking, neglecting to explicitly specify that result.ruleId must be the same as result.rule.id was a simple oversight, of the same order as leaving a word out of a sentence -- how could result.ruleId and result.rule.id possibly be different?

I will keep it in for now. If the TC disagrees on Wednesday, I will remove it on the spot and we can then vote on the resulting, modified version.


-----Original Message-----
From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of David Keaton
Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 8:22 PM
To: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sarif] RE: New TC comment: Issue #429, missing constraint


       As long as only editorial changes are made, the current draft should reflect your best current thinking, even if you have changed your mind along the way.  It is fine to revert the change if that is what you currently believe is best.  You can explain your reasoning at Wednesday's meeting (or before) and the committee can discuss it before deciding whether to ask for a Special Majority Vote for Committee Specification.


On 2019-07-07 20:08, Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) wrote:
Hmmm. I see that I had previously decided /not/ to take this change.
In the heat of editing this afternoon, I did make this change â it
seemed at the time an obvious bug that needed fixing.

*David,* please let me know whether to revert this change in the draft
I just pushed.


*From:* sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> *On
Behalf Of *Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)
*Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2019 5:38 PM
*To:* OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org>
*Subject:* [sarif] New TC comment: Issue #429, missing constraint
*Importance:* High

I noticed and filed Issue #429
âMissing constraint: result.ruleId == result.rule.idâ:

The spec correctly says that if |result.ruleIndex|Âand
|result.rule.index|Âare both present, they must be equal. But it does
/not/Âsay that if |result.ruleId|Âand |result.rule.id|Âare both
present, they must be equal. It /should/Âsay that.

I was sure Iâd said that, but I just canât find it in Â3.27.5,
result.ruleId property.

It would be a substantive change to add this constraint. I propose
/not/ to take this change (and trigger another comment period). Itâs
not like somebodyâs likely to create a SARIF file that looks like this:

results: [

  Â {

  ÂÂÂ ruleId: CS0001,

  ÂÂÂ rule: {

  ÂÂÂÂÂid: CS0002

  ÂÂÂ },

  ÂÂÂ ...

Itâs just that we should have explicitly prohibited it.


To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]