RE: Issue #362: We need "request" and "response" objects after all

From
Laurence Golding <>
Date
2019-04-10T01:15:00+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: Issue #362: We need "request" and "response" objects after all
I made these changes, produced a change draft,

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ChangeDrafts/Accepted/sarif-v2.0-issue-362-request-response.docx

merged it into the provisional draft,

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/blob/master/Documents/ProvisionalDrafts/sarif-v2.0-csd02-provisional.docx

and closed the issue.

Please let us know ASAP if you have any questions or concerns with this issue.  This is a substantive addition to the format,  although as I said below, it is non-breaking, uses design patterns we’ve used before, and addresses a pressing need.

We came very close to meeting our goal  of having all changes merged one week before TC #35. Of the three remaining issues that involve any writing (#266, #323, and #358), two of them are quite small, and one of them (#266) I’m inclined  to dispense with entirely. I expect to finish #323 and #358 tomorrow.

Thanks,
Larry
From:   <>  On Behalf Of  Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)

Sent:  Tuesday, April 9, 2019 2:15 PM
To:  OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List <>
Cc:  Michael Fanning <>; Harleen Kaur Kohli <>
Subject:  [sarif] Issue #362: We need "request" and "response" objects after all
Importance:  High

While writing a converter for a web analysis tool, it became clear to me that using  threadFlow.immutableState  to hold web request headers was  not  sufficient to meet the needs of these tools. So I filed
Issue #362 , “Defined request and response objects.”

The issue explains the rationale in more detail, and presents a proposal. The proposal is  non-breaking . It recapitulates the pattern we’ve used previously for logical locations and addresses: using  cached objects  to reduce repetition of request and response objects, and making requests and responses  externalizable  to reduce file size.

I am going to produce a change draft and optimistically merge it into the provisional draft. I don’t actually think this is a controversial proposal; I just wish I had understood earlier how important it was.

My original goal was to have everything merged by end of day Tuesday (today) to give everybody a full week to review the final version. At this point I will miss that goal, but only by about half a day. Despite the seeming size of this  change, it’s quite similar to text I’ve written many times before, so I expect to be done no later than noon tomorrow. I’ll let you know as soon as the draft is available.

Thanks,
Larry