Conversation
| references: | ||
| - type: web_content | ||
| url: "https://score-json.github.io/json/main/concept.html#scoring" | ||
| description: "Description of the algorithm how scores are accumulated, reviewed." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what exactly is reviewed here? is the description reviewed or how scores are accumulated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The description here is just copied from Mr. Schemmel's PR. I guess it is referring to the fact that we updated the concept section of the report.
We should remove the "reviewed" and just have "Description of the algorithm on how scores are calculated and accumulated"
| level: 1.1 | ||
| normative: true | ||
| references: | ||
| - type: project_website |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain why these are 3 different types of references here? especially the first and third link look really similar to me
| description: "Trustable Compliance Report showing scores for different TA items." | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The confidence in the nlohmann/json library also incorporates confidence scores derived from other TA items. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dont really understand this statement or the idea behind it. Can you explain?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that you are trying to target this

However, I think the combination of JLS-08 and JLS-09 are already indirectly stating the same thing as this. Instead, I would reformulate it to something like
"High-level statements are broken down into smaller, recursive and definite expressions that can be proved to be either true or false."
TSF/trustable/statements/JLS-40.md
Outdated
| level: 1.1 | ||
| normative: true | ||
| references: | ||
| - type: website_content |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
either website_content or web_content (line 8) is correct, but not both at the same time :)
| description: "TSF documentation describing responsibilities, verification processes, and change control for score-json" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Responsibilities for manual verification and review follow documented, competence-based processes and guidelines, and the associated processes and checks are regularly reviewed and updated under defined change control. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here we need the information to which repos/libraries this statement should apply. In the references you name score-json and nlohmann/json - is the statement meant for both?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, also needs to be more explicit or broken down into smaller statements.
What are the "responsibilities" and "competence based processes and guidelines"?
| description: "TSF-related description of analysis, verification processes, and update concepts for score-json" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Manual verification activities that complement automated analysis for the nlohmann/json library are documented, reviewed against defined criteria, and considered for their impact on identifying and addressing misbehaviours. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Misbehaviour is an established term in TSF (defined as 'any behaviour of the software that deviates from the defined expectations').
However, I think this statement is still on a too high level. It needs to be more explicit (or broken down into further supporting statements). What are the manual activities? what are the defined criteria?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For example:
"The manual activity of reviewing and addressing vulnerability/bug reports, is well-documented.. whatever"
Then reference to e.g., this https://github.com/nlohmann/json/security/advisories/new
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe even better examples:
"The manual activity of issuing a vulnerability or bug report for the nlohmann/json library is a well-defined process."
"All manual pull requests to the nlohmann/json repository are expected to describe the rationale behind any non-trivial changes, and link to an existing issue"
- Reference: https://github.com/nlohmann/json/blob/49026f799983840d7cf1a8109ffffe7eb4b1012c/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md?plain=1#L70 and https://github.com/nlohmann/json/blob/49026f799983840d7cf1a8109ffffe7eb4b1012c/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md?plain=1#L74
"Feature requests for the nlohmann/json library are actively investigated by Niels Lohmann"
- Reference: https://github.com/nlohmann/json/discussions/categories/ideas (showing that almost all feature requests are answered by Niels Lohmann)
TSF/trustable/statements/JLS-36.md
Outdated
| description: "release management and update process description" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| All S-CORE methodologies governing releases and updates are defined and consistently followed. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the reference proves the "defined" part, but maybe we need another reference for the "consistently followed" part. Only because there is a readme describing the process it may not be ultimately followed.
TSF/trustable/statements/JLS-08.md
Outdated
| references: | ||
| - type: web_content | ||
| url: "https://score-json.github.io/json/main/generated/trustable_report_for_Software.html#compliance-for-trustable" | ||
| description: "Trustable Compliance Report showing the overall trustability score for nlohmann/json." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please link to the report of the target repo instead:
https://eclipse-score.github.io/inc_nlohmann_json/main/generated/trustable_report_for_Software.html#compliance-for-trustable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I'm not convinced if this reference should be included at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes good point, the statement is just about that each statement is scored and says nothing about the overall score. (I will delete this reference)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes good point. I had a look at it again and noticed that the statement is only about the fact, that each statement is scored and doesnt say anything about the overall score. (so I will delete this reference)
TSF/trustable/statements/JLS-08.md
Outdated
| description: "Trustable Compliance Report showing the overall trustability score for nlohmann/json." | ||
| - type: web_content | ||
| url: "https://score-json.github.io/json/main/generated/trustable_report_for_Software.html" | ||
| description: "Trustable Compliance Report showing scores for evidences." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really think these references are sufficient for proving that each statement is indeed scored. Maybe you can use this link instead:
https://eclipse-score.github.io/inc_nlohmann_json/main/generated/dashboard.html#summary
Here you can see the number of reviewed/unreviewed items.
| references: | ||
| - type: web_content | ||
| url: "https://score-json.github.io/json/main/concept.html#scoring" | ||
| description: "Description of the algorithm how scores are accumulated, reviewed." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The description here is just copied from Mr. Schemmel's PR. I guess it is referring to the fact that we updated the concept section of the report.
We should remove the "reviewed" and just have "Description of the algorithm on how scores are calculated and accumulated"
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The S-Core methodologies are followed. No newline at end of file | ||
| All contributions to the nlohmann/json repository are reviewed according to the project’s documented contribution and review process. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sounds similar to JLS-06 and JLS-25.
I think we need to understand TA-METHODOLOGIES better
| normative: true | ||
| references: | ||
| - type: verbose_file | ||
| path: "/workspaces/json/TSF/README.md" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please use relative path instead (i.e., without the "workspaces/json")
| description: "Trustable Compliance Report showing scores for different TA items." | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The confidence in the nlohmann/json library also incorporates confidence scores derived from other TA items. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that you are trying to target this

However, I think the combination of JLS-08 and JLS-09 are already indirectly stating the same thing as this. Instead, I would reformulate it to something like
"High-level statements are broken down into smaller, recursive and definite expressions that can be proved to be either true or false."
| description: "TSF-related description of analysis, verification processes, and update concepts for score-json" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Manual verification activities that complement automated analysis for the nlohmann/json library are documented, reviewed against defined criteria, and considered for their impact on identifying and addressing misbehaviours. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Misbehaviour is an established term in TSF (defined as 'any behaviour of the software that deviates from the defined expectations').
However, I think this statement is still on a too high level. It needs to be more explicit (or broken down into further supporting statements). What are the manual activities? what are the defined criteria?
| description: "TSF documentation describing responsibilities, verification processes, and change control for score-json" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Responsibilities for manual verification and review follow documented, competence-based processes and guidelines, and the associated processes and checks are regularly reviewed and updated under defined change control. No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, also needs to be more explicit or broken down into smaller statements.
What are the "responsibilities" and "competence based processes and guidelines"?
| normative: true | ||
| references: | ||
| - type: web_content | ||
| url: "https://score-json.github.io/json/main/generated/trustable_report_for_Software.html#compliance-for-ta" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please always use the report of the inc_nlohmann_json repo
This PR is for resolving review comments from aschemmel in the PR Review TT-CONFIDENCE #118