-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reference the source reasoning for each scenario #174
Comments
I'm down to include a reference to the specification in the I would be interested in separating the strictly-spec compliant scenarios from the other ones with a directory structure rather than adding more complexity to the schema e.g. Maybe we should consider directories for each specification e.g. |
As prompted in #160 maybe we do need something more advanced in the schema like...
|
Nope, just spitballing ideas. It's more when reading through this I want to be able to double check why a specific scenario exists, there's a lot of spec and a lot of scenarios, and I can't always keep it in my head. |
Makes sense. I'm hesitant to add it to the schema just to keep things simple for now, but I would definitely appreciate adding references in the expected explanation and/or description as appropriate. |
I think we might want even more categories as well. We're also working on multi-platform locking at Astral, and that is going to probably want its own set of distinct scenarios. I don't yet have a ton of insight here, but my inclination would also be to add some more structure to the |
FYI, that is discussed in #173, I'm certainly all for it! |
Yeah I think we should consider |
At the moment it's difficult to validate whether a specific scenario is following the spec or not because it's not referencing it. My idea would be that either in the existing field "explanation", or a new list field that would look something like
"sources": [{"url": "...", "direct": true, "notes": "..."}, ...]
the source(s) of the scenario can be referenced.My idea is that:
This would probably be a lot of work to go back and update every scenario, but if it could be required for new scenarios that it could be slowly fixed over time.
Just a thought anyway, happy to slowly work on it if accepted.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: