Making explicit fixup heuristics #828
JimFuller-RedHat
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
Yes, we should have that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
|
Minimally we should validate everything that has a schema, then there are usage conventions (ex. there are lots of usage cases for spdx/cyclonedx which might result in surprising ingestion). If we do encounter bad data how do we fixup and maybe create a audit/provenance of such a change ... from a code perspective should we adopt some common idiom for handling fixups in whatever module ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
from @bobmcwhirter
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Can we list out what we know in terms of fixup heuristics (include failure states - for example 'sbom contains bad data do we fail totally' ) and maybe discuss how we might organise such things going forward ?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions