usnistgov / metaschema

Documentation for and implementations of the metaschema modeling language

https://pages.nist.gov/metaschema/

Other

36 stars 19 forks source link

Allow `<let/>` in `<constraint/>` without requiring a sibling constraint #552

Open aj-stein-nist opened 8 months ago

aj-stein-nist commented 8 months ago

Committer Notes

Closes #548.

All Submissions:

[x] Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
[x] Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
[x] Have you squashed any non-relevant commits and commit messages? [instructions]
[x] Do all automated CI/CD checks pass?

Changes to Core Features:

[x] Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them? In issue linked to PR.
~Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable? Not sure if that is in scope for work item, feedback requested from reviewers.~
~Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)?~
~Have you updated all website](https://pages.nist.gov/metaschema) and readme documentation affected by the changes you made? Changes to the website can be made in the website/content directory of your branch.~ N/A for this change

aj-stein-nist commented 8 months ago

So I tested the XML Schema by using the merged metaschema module change in https://github.com/usnistgov/metaschema/pull/542#discussion_r1495861196 (the source of the issue reported and this PR) with the current XSD file via GH URL in xsi:schemaLocation (a.k.a before) and locally binding to the version in this PR (a.k.a after) and the VS Code XML Schema plugin validation and code completer properly work. See screenshots below.

Before:

After:

I am not sure if we want to include and integrate formal testing into this PR or a related issues for such things moving forward. Let me know.

aj-stein-nist commented 8 months ago

Discussion of this today was postponed, see https://github.com/usnistgov/metaschema/issues/548#issuecomment-1962109024 for more info. Converting this to draft for now as final reviews are not happening until proper discussion and longer feedback window.

iMichaela commented 2 months ago

@wendellpiez - My understanding from the comment above stating that "we need to park this pragmatic and low-effort approach [...] and discuss different approaches to allow interweaving lets with all the constraint types of having them separate. This could and likely will have implications on backwards compatibility on whether we allow interleaving or keeping them separate." is that this PR must be closed. Can you please provide any background info you might have on this topic? Thank you

wendellpiez commented 2 months ago

Since OSCAL does not currently use let TMK, this problem will not have any impact on OSCAL until it decides it wishes to do so.

This being the case I think @aj-stein-nist and @david-waltermire might prefer to drive the issue for now (assuming they need it to move) - while in principle I'm amenable to accepting this PR as soon as they say it is done.