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

[META] Semantic validations #47

Closed
1 of 3 tasks
ycombinator opened this issue Sep 17, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed
1 of 3 tasks

[META] Semantic validations #47

ycombinator opened this issue Sep 17, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor

ycombinator commented Sep 17, 2020

The package spec allows for syntactic validations of packages. These validate the structure of package contents. They have been implemented via #14, #41, and several minor follow up PRs.

There is also a need for semantic validations. These validate that values found in package contents conform to further rules that may not be expressible in the spec itself. For example:

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Sep 18, 2020

@ycombinator ycombinator added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 18, 2021
rw-access pushed a commit to rw-access/package-spec that referenced this issue Mar 23, 2021
* Fix: fetch and push only relevant branches

* Fix refs

* Fix: comment
@ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @ruflin, I'm starting to look into this issue now. Could you elaborate on your comment (#47 (comment)) please? The link in the comment is now dead so I can't figure out what you meant. Thanks!

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Apr 8, 2021

If I remember correctly this was about validating that a pipeline name that was used in the manifest actually exists. Basically any file that can be referenced from the manifest file like icons, readmes, pipelines, etc. should be validated that it exists.

@ycombinator ycombinator mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2021
2 tasks
@mtojek
Copy link
Contributor

mtojek commented Apr 27, 2021

@ycombinator Would you mind updating the status of this issue? You have made a significant progress here recently.

@ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor Author

There is no direct update to this issue because of the recent progress. However, I updated #65 which is linked from this issue.

Separately, I also added #167 to the checklist on this issue.

@jsoriano
Copy link
Member

Checklist was completed, closing this. Please open new issues for additional validations.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants