-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 184
fix(report): corrections to report #526
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -206,6 +206,7 @@ struct Release { | |
53: optional set<string> operatingSystems, | ||
54: optional COTSDetails cotsDetails, | ||
55: optional EccInformation eccInformation, | ||
56: optional set<string> softwarePlatforms, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This new field is completely independent from the list of software platforms at the component level? Why is it needed? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't understand the first question. It is needed because we report on the release level and not on the component level. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There is already a field "softwarePlatforms" at the component level. As a release always belongs to a component I was wondering if the fields should really be independent. Or if there should be some logic like "the list of software platforms of a component is the aggregation of software platform lists of its releases" now that we have this field at release level. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since a release already has it's own "operating systems" & "programming languages" i assumed that "software platforms" should follow suit. If this is wrong, what is the purpose of "operating systems" & "programming languages" on the release level?
Yes, that is correct. Isn't the component suppose to be more of an abstract/template of a release and the each release is what actually goes into the project? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. maybe the field softwarePlatforms should not been created at the first hand, but if in the report, it should be taken from the component where the release belongs to. I think a similar case is type (OSS, COTS, Freeware, ...) where the field value is taken from the component when listing releases. |
||
|
||
65: optional set<string> mainLicenseIds, | ||
|
||
|
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.
seems also to me that
OVERVIEW_TABLE_INDEX
is at least not declared in the same class, so javac telling me it is missing this sounds likely.