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

Make FilesAnalyzed a pointer, assume "true" if absent #147

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Make FilesAnalyzed a pointer, assume "true" if absent #147

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

ianling
Copy link
Collaborator

@ianling ianling commented Jun 6, 2022

Closes #145

Depends on and contains commits from #134, #135, #137, #138, and #139

Per the spec, FilesAnalyzed is not required to be present. If it is not present, the value is assumed to be true.

This was previously handled using a secondary field that denoted whether or not FilesAnalyzed was present.

This PR removes that field and makes FilesAnalyzed a pointer to denote that it is not required to be present.

All of the parsers interpret an absence of a value as true.

All of the file writers will ALWAYS write a value for FilesAnalyzed, either true or false, they will never omit it. I think it is better for SPDX files to be explicit.

Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Ling <ian@iancaling.com>
@kzantow
Copy link
Collaborator

kzantow commented Jan 18, 2023

Hi @ianling -- there was a significant refactoring in this library, are you able to adjust this PR for the changes? Also, you will need to sign-off your commits

@kzantow
Copy link
Collaborator

kzantow commented May 22, 2023

Hiya @ianling -- thank you for this (and the other) contributions. Since this is dependent on the others, I'm going to close it for now. We will gladly reopen this if you decide to update/continue it, but I think it also may have been superseded by #210

@kzantow kzantow closed this May 22, 2023
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.

Bug: Package FilesAnalyzed field does not behave according to spec
2 participants