Skip to content

Conversation

@anders-ahlberg
Copy link

This change adds a type for FuseSoC cores (see https://github.com/olofk/fusesoc).

@jkowalleck jkowalleck requested a review from a team November 19, 2025 09:03
@johnmhoran
Copy link
Member

Putting aside the fact that we have not yet defined how the various test types are to behave (parse, build, roundtrip, base, advanced and so on), the test file seems to comprise 4 groups of parse, roundtrip and build test cases that are identical but for variations in namespace, name and version values. Why? A few tests meant to fail (there are none here) would be more useful and informative.

@anders-ahlberg
Copy link
Author

Oh, I was just copying the format of the tests in some other type already present, taking that for an appropriate level of effort. I'll see about adding some more.

Copy link
Member

@pombredanne pombredanne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Here are a few nits for your review... also I am not sure that the encoding of the namespace / matches the spec... can you double check?

"expected_failure_reason": null
},
{
"description": "Build test for PURL type: fusesoc",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There may be an extra space there?

"expected_failure_reason": null
},
{
"description": "Build test for PURL type: fusesoc",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra space in the description

"version_definition": {
"requirement": "optional",
"native_name": "version",
"note": "The version is the semantic version of the fusesoc core. We would really like this to be required, but that breaks validation."
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure you need this comment.... The fact that version is optional is a spec thing when you want to refer to a package without mentioning a version like in the CVE schema, or when using that with a VERS. What about this:

Suggested change
"note": "The version is the semantic version of the fusesoc core. We would really like this to be required, but that breaks validation."
"note": "The version is the semantic version of the fusesoc core."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants