feat: Implement the extensions RFC 0002#167
Merged
mwiebe merged 3 commits intoOpenJobDescription:mainlinefrom Feb 11, 2025
Merged
feat: Implement the extensions RFC 0002#167mwiebe merged 3 commits intoOpenJobDescription:mainlinefrom
mwiebe merged 3 commits intoOpenJobDescription:mainlinefrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Mark Wiebe <399551+mwiebe@users.noreply.github.com>
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Signed-off-by: Mark Wiebe <399551+mwiebe@users.noreply.github.com>
mwiebe
force-pushed
the
rfc-0002-extensions
branch
from
093ce61 to
797fc8b
Compare
epmog
requested changes
Feb 11, 2025
leongdl
reviewed
Feb 11, 2025
leongdl
reviewed
Feb 11, 2025
crowecawcaw
reviewed
Feb 11, 2025
Signed-off-by: Mark Wiebe <399551+mwiebe@users.noreply.github.com>
mwiebe
force-pushed
the
rfc-0002-extensions
branch
from
b5c74c5 to
03ccc01
Compare
|
crowecawcaw
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2025
epmog
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2025
leongdl
reviewed
Feb 12, 2025
| if schema_version == TemplateSpecificationVersion.JOBTEMPLATE_v2023_09: | ||
| return parse_model(model=JobTemplate_2023_09, obj=template) | ||
| return parse_model( | ||
| model=JobTemplate_2023_09, obj=template, supported_extensions=supported_extensions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a question, will we change this in the near future? 2025_03 or something like that?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I think it's better to accumulate a series of extensions before starting a new revision.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was the problem/requirement? (What/Why)
https://github.com/OpenJobDescription/openjd-specifications/blob/mainline/rfcs/0002-model-extensions.md
What was the solution? (How)
Implement support into template parsing.
What is the impact of this change?
RFC 0001 and other later RFCs can be implemented in a manner conformant with RFC 0002. The base 2023-09 specification stays the same, except when a list of names for
extensionsis provided in the template, and the implementation processing the template supports those extensions.How was this change tested?
Yes
Was this change documented?
Yes
Is this a breaking change?
It's not a breaking change. the new parameter
supported_extensionfor parsing a template is optional, and if none are provided, it uses the base specification with no extensions enabled.Does this change impact security?
This does not impact the threat model, and the new extensions field and parameter follow the same level of input validation relevant for existing threats.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.