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

Remove overly specific index-has-key constraint for link[@rel="proof-of-compliance"] #2103

Conversation

aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa commented Feb 13, 2025

Committer Notes

Proposed fix that closes #2102.

All Submissions:

By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.

(For reviewers: The wiki has guidance on code review and overall issue review for completeness.)

Changes to Core Features:

  • Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
  • Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?
  • ~Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)?
  • Have you updated the OSCAL website and readme documentation affected by the changes you made? Changes to the OSCAL website can be made in the OSCAL-Pages and OSCAL_Reference repositories. N/A website documentation will be automatically updated from documentation generation pipeline.

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa requested a review from a team as a code owner February 13, 2025 14:22
@wandmagic
Copy link
Collaborator

there are multiple issues with this constraint:
it makes it so proof of compliance can only link to another component and that link must exactly match an existing UUID of a component.

this change will allow proof of compliance to be direct links as well as links to other components or the resources in the back-matter.

I would say that validated by should be removed as well, OR a #{uuid} prefixing with a hash for continuity with other self referential component links.

@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am going to propose closing this PR in favor of the more narrowly scope constraint proposed #2107.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants