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

Duplicate definitions of schemas #927

Closed
trishankatdatadog opened this issue Oct 2, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #929
Closed

Duplicate definitions of schemas #927

trishankatdatadog opened this issue Oct 2, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #929
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member

Description of issue or feature request:

There are duplicate definitions of schemas. For example, ROLE_SCHEMA is defined twice (here and here) in formats.py.

Current behavior:

Duplicated definitions.

Expected behavior:

Non-duplicated definitions.

@trishankatdatadog trishankatdatadog added this to the 0.12.0 milestone Oct 2, 2019
@lukpueh
Copy link
Member

lukpueh commented Oct 3, 2019

Thanks, @trishankatdatadog!

Independently of solving the duplicate definition, I would appreciate your take on this schema-related issue secure-systems-lab/securesystemslib#183.

@adityasaky
Copy link
Collaborator

adityasaky commented Oct 3, 2019

There was an effort to reduce confusions between roles and delegations in the reference implementation and clean up the schemas and roledb. Is #846 relevant here?

Edit: https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf/pull/846/files#diff-342188447c824198a41061eb376e1898L103-L110

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member

lukpueh commented Oct 3, 2019

Thanks, @adityasaky! Looks like we (probably I) should soon start to finish the work, @awwad started in #660/#846.

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member Author

@lukpueh @adityasaky I agree, this needs a larger fix, but we should be able to quickly dedup this right now in TUF at least...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants