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

Add style guide requirements re context item operator, relative, and absolute path expression #1060

Open
1 of 2 tasks
aj-stein-gsa opened this issue Jan 3, 2025 · 0 comments
Labels
scope: constraints scope: documentation tech debt type: backlog item For developer work that is not part of a user-facing epic or user story.

Comments

@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor

aj-stein-gsa commented Jan 3, 2025

This is a ...

improvement - something could be better

This relates to ...

  • the FedRAMP OSCAL Validations

User Story

As a developer of FedRAMP OSCAL constraints, in order to increase clarity and decrease ambiguity regarding absolute and relative paths used in @target and @test for individual constraints and their //context/metapath/@target, I would like clear guidance for developers on how to use /absolute-reference-to-top-level-model and .//relative/recursive/path/to/child/model/element accordingly.

Goals

Dependencies

No response

Acceptance Criteria

  • All FedRAMP Documents Related to OSCAL Adoption (https://github.com/GSA/fedramp-automation) affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.
  • A Pull Request (PR) is submitted that fully addresses the goals of this User Story. This issue is referenced in the PR.

Other information

Developers in the team identified well-formed and valid Metapath syntax but confusing behavior regarding relative and absolute path behavior without the . context item operator.

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa added tech debt scope: documentation scope: constraints type: backlog item For developer work that is not part of a user-facing epic or user story. labels Jan 3, 2025
@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa moved this from 🆕 New to 📋 Backlog in FedRAMP Automation Jan 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
scope: constraints scope: documentation tech debt type: backlog item For developer work that is not part of a user-facing epic or user story.
Projects
Status: 📋 Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant