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

Remarks fields in SSP defined as string instead of #field_oscal-metadata_remarks #1130

Closed
guyzyl opened this issue Feb 8, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1138
Closed

Remarks fields in SSP defined as string instead of #field_oscal-metadata_remarks #1130

guyzyl opened this issue Feb 8, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1138
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@guyzyl
Copy link
Contributor

guyzyl commented Feb 8, 2022

Describe the bug

In the SSP schema, there are a 2 models that contain a remarks field that is defined with "type": "string" instead of "$ref": "#field_oscal-metadata_remarks"

The places are:

  • #assembly_oscal-ssp_diagram
  • #assembly_oscal-ssp_authorization-boundary

They should be updated to use #field_oscal-metadata_remarks.

What is affected by this bug?

The bug doesn't have a critical effect since #field_oscal-metadata_remarks is defined as a string, therefore there's no type mismatch.
It does however harm the conformity of the schema, and should be fixed.

Other Comments

I'd be happy to open a PR for this if this if this is approved as a bug.

@guyzyl guyzyl added the bug label Feb 8, 2022
guyzyl added a commit to guyzyl/OSCAL that referenced this issue Feb 14, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
@guyzyl guyzyl mentioned this issue Feb 14, 2022
4 tasks
@david-waltermire
Copy link
Contributor

david-waltermire commented Feb 25, 2022

@guyzyl The SSP Metaschema needs to be updated for these. This will cause the JSON schema to be generated properly.

The following cases need to be update:

The should look like:

<field ref="remarks" in-xml="WITH_WRAPPER"/>

You interested in submitting a PR to do this? Would you also be interested in checking and fixing any similar issues in the other metaschemas?

Never mind, I just noticed your PR #1138. I'll get this merged.

@david-waltermire david-waltermire added this to the OSCAL 1.0.2 milestone Feb 25, 2022
@david-waltermire david-waltermire linked a pull request Feb 25, 2022 that will close this issue
4 tasks
david-waltermire pushed a commit to guyzyl/OSCAL that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
david-waltermire pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
david-waltermire pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
stephenbanghart pushed a commit to stephenbanghart/OSCAL that referenced this issue Mar 14, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
iMichaela pushed a commit to iMichaela/OSCAL that referenced this issue Apr 7, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
Rene2mt pushed a commit to Rene2mt/OSCAL that referenced this issue May 17, 2022
Changed `remarks` fields from `define-field` to `ref`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants