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

Schema links for validation are broken. #1883

Closed
Compton-US opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Schema links for validation are broken. #1883

Compton-US opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@Compton-US
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the bug

I noticed that the references to the schematron files and metaschema.xsd pointed to the old metaschema submodule instead of the new metaschema-xslt. This resulted in validations passing when there were possible issues in metaschema documents.

Who is the bug affecting

All developers, and ultimately the schemas and converters in OSCAL.

What is affected by this bug

Modeling, Tooling & API

How do we replicate this issue

See the following references for an example:

Expected behavior (i.e. solution)

Validations should fail when problems are encountered in documents.

Other comments

I already have a PR ready to push. Will push shortly for review.

Revisions

No response

@Compton-US Compton-US added the bug label Aug 11, 2023
@nikitawootten-nist
Copy link
Contributor

nikitawootten-nist commented Aug 11, 2023

#1872 fixes this (but will likely not be merged soon), should I break out 0c7d1eb into its own PR?

@Compton-US
Copy link
Contributor Author

Compton-US commented Aug 11, 2023

@nikitawootten-nist the PR I just pushed covers the broken xml-model references too.

https://github.com/usnistgov/OSCAL/pull/1884/files

@Compton-US
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also for awareness, in CI, if there are errors in metaschema, then validation might still pass in some cases. May need to prioritize this.

@aj-stein-nist
Copy link
Contributor

aj-stein-nist commented Aug 17, 2023

Quickly discussed this in issue review today and we need to make sure we prioritize this correctly especially if we are not making a release in the near future. The work itself is complete and this issue may be closed.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants