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

additional validation errors #48

Closed
mbjones opened this issue Jan 25, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

additional validation errors #48

mbjones opened this issue Jan 25, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@mbjones
Copy link
Member

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 25, 2020

I found additional validation errors in addition to #46.

  1. The packageId is not used as an identifier for checking uniqueness with other id values and for resolving references.
  2. Errors are thrown for annotation elements in additionalMetadata because their parent doesn't contain an id. This should be ok, because in additionalMetadata the annotation subject is determined via the describes fields.
  3. The annotation/@references attribute values are not checked during validation to be sure they resolve to an id -- only the //references elements are checked.

I've begun implementing fixes for these in my fork here: https://github.com/mbjones/emld/tree/46-validation-errors

@mbjones
Copy link
Member Author

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 25, 2020

Fixes checked in PR #49 .

@cboettig
Copy link
Member

@cboettig cboettig commented Jan 27, 2020

Closed by #49

Please let me know if now would be a good time to prepare a CRAN release for these changes? Or shall we hold tight and see if there's any remaining validation issues we can squash first?

@mbjones would you be willing to send another PR with updates to NEWS.md describing the validator changes? Also, the DESCRIPTION author list is now out of date -- may I add you and @amoeba as co-authors there?

@mbjones
Copy link
Member Author

@mbjones mbjones commented Jan 27, 2020

I think another release now would be good -- those were serious errors and we should get them out into the community so that there's less confusion over correct validation.

I'll send another PR and update both files, and I'll bump the version to 0.4.0 in DESCRIPTION. Do you want to run codemetar again or just update the codemeta.json file manually with the additional info?

@cboettig
Copy link
Member

@cboettig cboettig commented Jan 27, 2020

Thanks!

Feel free either way on the codemeta, I run the codemetar script at submission anyway.

@cboettig cboettig closed this Jan 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.