feat: add cyclonedx.model.dependency.Dependency.provides#735
feat: add cyclonedx.model.dependency.Dependency.provides#735uzairchhapra wants to merge 10 commits intoCycloneDX:mainfrom
cyclonedx.model.dependency.Dependency.provides#735Conversation
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
f2ad0ed to
fb4598d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
|
@jkowalleck PR is ready for review. |
cyclonedx.model.dependency.Dependency.providescyclonedx.model.dependency.Dependency.provides
|
thank you for your contribution, @uzairchhapra . the implementation looks promising. Regarding tests, we tend to go with an integration-test snapshot-solution, over detailed unit tests. |
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
| self, | ||
| target: Dependable, | ||
| depends_on: Optional[Iterable[Dependable]] = None, | ||
| provides: Optional[Iterable[Dependable]] = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
instead of adding a new parameter here, how about adding a new method instead: register_provision(self, target: Dependable, provides: Optional[Iterable[Dependable]] = None).
what do you think about this?
this would fit the original architectural plans better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jkowalleck
How should this function work register_provision for the example mentioned pin models.py?
A -- requires -> C
B -- provides -> C
Considering register_dependency and register_provision will be called for all A, B and C, should I look for existing dependencies added in register_provision to avoid creating a new Dependency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is still open.
could you consider adding a new method?
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
|
@uzairchhapra, I just wanted to ask how things are going. |
Apologies for the delayed response. I will get to this this weekend. If I remember correctly, I was stuck in making the test function work |
|
Hi everyone, |
|
@aespogom I'm not affiliated, but it looks as though the author has abandoned this PR. If it's blocking you, would you consider picking it up? |
…ides Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Uzair Chhapra <uzairchhapra@gmail.com>
| self, | ||
| target: Dependable, | ||
| depends_on: Optional[Iterable[Dependable]] = None, | ||
| provides: Optional[Iterable[Dependable]] = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is still open.
could you consider adding a new method?
Fixes #691