-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
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
Check oscal-version against fedramp-version in digital authorization package #833
Comments
@Gabeblis is working on a PR to |
@Gabeblis I actually updated the examples because the number logic for I forget the key part of the semantic versioning guidance when I was trying to implement the logic, you update the major version (e.g. from So, I am going to adjust back the changes I had not upstreamed yet, sorry for the confusion, I just wanted to update that I refreshed the issue, because you took the time to discuss it with me and I assume it will come back up in review. |
I see.. that does make perfect sense. So will want to make sure that the value of the first digit is 1 (any higher would mean significant changes that could potentially make constraints invalid) and we'll keep the logic the same for the 2 trailing digits (middle and end). I noticed one thing..in the examples under |
Thanks for the update. Also, message from the Big Giant Head: the release strategy I pointed to in the repo, ADR#2 is no longer valid and the canonical source has been the similar (by skimming) but very different release strategy on the website. The tags are confusing, but we should have moved to vanilla SemVer a little while ago. So, the issue requirements require rework (no pun intended), so I will close the PR for now and put this into Backlog state. 😦 |
So @Gabeblis, re #833 (comment), hold on the website update for now. Do not open that PR. We have some others to tighten up the release guidance, doubly so the GSA/fedramp-automation repo. Apologies! |
Thanks to @kyhu65867 for humoring me and and walking through concepts that need better explanation for example here.
[WIP] Start of map lookup approach for GSA#833
Thanks to @kyhu65867 for humoring me and and walking through concepts that need better explanation for example here.
Thanks to @kyhu65867 for humoring me and and walking through concepts that need better explanation for example here.
Shout out to @kyhu65867 for trying to warn me about this during a long pairing session, but me missing the hint.
Add three different scenarios for failing tests to improve coverage for the different error states.
Constraint Task
As a digital authorization package maintainer, to have confidence that each document in the package conforms with the right version of FedRAMP requirements, I want each OSCAL document in the package to check
//metadata/oscal-version
aligns with//metadata/fedramp-version
.Intended Outcome
Goal
The constraint(s) will validate that the
fedramp-version
andoscal-version
in the document conforms to the release strategy. (NOTE: As part of this effort, this task can be worked alongside the completion of GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#104, this issue has been updated to account for that change.)Syntax
Write a constraint (
id="oscal-version-matches-fedramp-version" with
level="ERROR") that checks that each digit for the value ofoscal-version
(1.1.2
) is greater than or equal to the version number embedded in the end of theprop[@name="fedramp-version"]
and less than the major version (the first digit in a version, sooscal-version
MUST be >=1.1.2
and <2.0.0
.VALID:
INVALID:
Syntax Type
This is required core OSCAL syntax.
Allowed Values
There are no relevant allowed values.
Metapath(s) to Content
NOTE: Updated due to relevant pairing feedback from @wandmagic and others: during profile resolution the original
//metadata
query MAY bring non-FedRAMP artifacts into scope, and in our use cases that MAY be profile or catalog, so we exclude them by absence for now.Purpose of the OSCAL Content
The FedRAMP version prop added in #800 for #789 but this has a sub-part that indicates the minimal oscal-version required by FedRAMP, but does not cross-check the explicit use of
oscal-version
in an adjacent field.Dependencies
No response
Acceptance Criteria
oscal-cli metaschema metapath eval -e "expression"
.Other information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: