-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
add regex to get componentID from control mapping #51
add regex to get componentID from control mapping #51
Conversation
0a026b5
to
97003ae
Compare
aed938d
to
88ba100
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@aitchkhan @haroonKhan-10p let's try to avoid hardcoding slice indices and instead use range
to retrieve the item in question. It's an odd way of iterating.
which slice indices are you referring to? |
|
@aitchkhan @haroonKhan-10p @asadullah-yousuf-10p I'm referring to all of them lol. Remember, the CSV that we're using is temporary, at least until the OSCAL "implementation" schema has been fully developed. And even though we have control over the layout of our CSV and can make some guarantees as to the indices of the elements in the slices, other consumers of |
@haroonKhan-10p if you could fix the iteration constructs by removing the hardcoded indices, we can go ahead and get this merged. thanks |
@anweiss the componentdefinition iteration index?
Because the CSV indices used are identifier for different things like
uuids, narratives.
…On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 7:58 PM Andrew Weiss ***@***.*** wrote:
@haroonKhan-10p <https://github.com/haroonKhan-10p> if you could fix the
iteration constructs by removing the hardcoded indices, we can go ahead and
get this merged. thanks
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#51 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AINS40vsWVOp7FvpCw6yZVc_uScEgZRnks5vGHihgaJpZM4aFAn2>
.
|
I believe indices were placed to get things rolling. A future proof solution would not be relying on the So for Amberjack, can we stick to what we have and add the xml part to the backlog ? |
@mohuk @aitchkhan we can leave the hardcoded indices for now. Please rebase and resolve conflicts and I'll go ahead and merge. I'll create a separate issue for us to address this in the future when the OSCAL "implementation" model matures. |
@aitchkhan @haroonKhan-10p please resolve conflicts and rebase. |
Signed-off-by: aitchkhan <aitchkhan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: aitchkhan <aitchkhan@gmail.com>
88ba100
to
63287fc
Compare
updated. |
Signed-off-by: aitchkhan <aitchkhan@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
add componentID from excel in generated implementation