Skip to content
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

Optional Test: Same Timestamps in Revision History #744

Merged

Conversation

tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor

- resolves oasis-tcs#627
- add optional test that warns if two timestamps in the revision history are the same
- add invalid examples for 6.2.21
- add valid examples for 6.2.21
- update testcase and schema for testcases
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 added the csaf 2.1 csaf 2.1 work label May 27, 2024
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 requested a review from sthagen May 27, 2024 22:12
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 self-assigned this May 27, 2024
- addresses parts of oasis-tcs#744
- correct metadata of valid example 3 of 6.2.21
- unify metadata of invalid example 3 of 6.2.21
- fix invalid JSON
Copy link
Contributor

@sthagen sthagen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM (only one rewording maybe).

@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 added tc-discussion-needed call_to_action a call to action has been send out and removed tc-discussion-needed labels May 29, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@santosomar santosomar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about the following text in order to make it easier to understand and grammatically correct:

"When converted to UTC, the timestamps of all items in the revision history MUST be tested to ensure that are unique and do not overlap (i.e., pairwise disjoint)."

- addresses review comment from oasis-tcs#744
- state clearly that conversion needs to happen first
@tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sthagen, @santosomar: I added a sentence for implementers regarding the UTC conversion. I think that should resolve the discussion.

- addresses parts of oasis-tcs#627
- add invalid examples for 6.2.21
Copy link
Contributor

@sthagen sthagen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍🏽

- addresses review comment from oasis-tcs#744
- simplify requirement on comparison
@tschmidtb51
Copy link
Contributor Author

After discussing this with @sthagen again, I realized that it is not needed to enforce the conversion to UTC. It is enough, if the comparison takes timestamps into account (see: ab3c9b2)

Copy link
Contributor

@sthagen sthagen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ship it! 😁

Copy link
Contributor

@santosomar santosomar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you 🙏

@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 added motion This item has a motion pending and removed call_to_action a call to action has been send out labels May 31, 2024
@santosomar
Copy link
Contributor

The motion to accept the pull request as suggested in #744 and include it into CSAF 2.1, has passed. It automatically carried on 2024-06-07 23:00 UTC. https://groups.oasis-open.org/discussion/motion-for-744

@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 added motion_passed A motion has passed and removed motion This item has a motion pending labels Jun 17, 2024
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 merged commit 1f005f2 into oasis-tcs:editor-revision-2024-05-29 Jun 17, 2024
5 checks passed
@tschmidtb51 tschmidtb51 removed the motion_passed A motion has passed label Jun 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
csaf 2.1 csaf 2.1 work
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants