-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
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
chore: deprecate shorthand properties #841
chore: deprecate shorthand properties #841
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Keith Zantow <[email protected]>
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.
lgtm. minor nits
schemas/spdx-schema.json
Outdated
"description" : "Indicates that a particular file belongs to a package.", | ||
"description" : "DEPRECATED: use relationships instead of this field. Indicates that a particular file belongs to a package.", | ||
"deprecated": true, | ||
"$comment": "This field has been deprecated as it is a duplicate of using SPDXRef-<package-id> CONTAINS SPDXRef-<file-id> relationships", |
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.
nit: for consistency, maybe just SPDXRef-PACKAGE CONTAINS?
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.
If you're referring to the SPDXRef-DOCUMENT
for the other deprecation text, I don't think there is a consistency problem because that is the actual value, whereas the SPDXRef-<package-id>
needs to match the containing package, but I'm happy to change this if people feel strongly. I'll see if I can find a better way to identify this.
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.
I did update the text here a bit, hopefully it's clear enough.
Signed-off-by: Keith Zantow <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Zantow <[email protected]>
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.
LGTM - @lumjjb if it looks good to you, I'll update the tools to generate the same changes and merge in this PR.
ping @lumjjb - does the latest changes look good? If so, I'll merge and update the tools |
yea LGTM! |
I'll go ahead and merged. I opened spdx/spdx-java-jackson-store#54 to track updating the Java tools. @armintaenzertng do we need to open a similar issue for the Python tools? @lumjjb @kzantow I'll assume you have the GoLang tools covered. |
Thanks for the heads-up, Gary, but the python tools should be fine as we only support these fields during parsing, which we will most likely continue to do. Edit: I just realized that we actually do output these fields; I'll remove that "feature". |
This PR adds deprecation to the "shorthand" properties in the schema and marks previously deprecated fields as such with the
deprecated
property.Based on the SPDX WG meeting 2023/02/28, these fields will not be included in SPDX 3.0 and we want to indicate they are deprecated in the latest SPDX 2.3 JSON schema.
cc: @goneall @lumjjb