I made this change directly in the Provisional Draft.
Larry
From: <> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:14 PM
To: 'Michael Fanning' <>;
Subject: RE: [sarif] Change to invocation.processSuccessful
I’d accept that.
Larry
From: Michael Fanning <>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:12 PM
To: Larry Golding (Comcast) <>;
Subject: RE: [sarif] Change to invocation.processSuccessful
Can we consider a more descriptive name?
‘processExitedSuccessfully’ for example?
From: <> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: [sarif] Change to invocation.processSuccessful
In merging the change for #115 (process outcome), I made a substantive change to the description of the default value for the invocation.processSuccessful property:
Was:
If this property is absent, its value SHALL be taken to be true if the exitCode property (§3.13.8) is present and has the value 0; otherwise its value SHALL be taken to be false.
Now is:
If this property is absent, its value SHALL be taken to be false if the exitCode property (§3.13.8) is present and has a non-zero value; otherwise its value SHALL be taken to be true.
Please reply if you disagree.
Larry
