Skip to content

Review schemas for possible consolidation and clean-up #1043

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
MVrachev opened this issue Jun 4, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Review schemas for possible consolidation and clean-up #1043

MVrachev opened this issue Jun 4, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@MVrachev
Copy link
Collaborator

MVrachev commented Jun 4, 2020

Description of issue or feature request:
FILEDICT_SCHEMA and TARGETINFO_SCHEMA are doing identical jobs but with the different representations of the information. Just look at their description:
image

image

This issue is based on a discussion with Joshua Lock: #1031 (comment)

Current behavior:
FILEDICT_SCHEMA is used in some functions when it is suitable and TARGETINFO_SCHEMA in other places where it would be easier to use it.

Expected behavior:
I think we should stick to one of those even if it means adding some additional argument to functions and doing little refactoring.

@joshuagl
Copy link
Member

joshuagl commented Jun 5, 2020

We should review the schemas, consolidate and clean up.

FILEDICT_SCHEMA and TARGETINFO_SCHEMA are clearly serving different purposes, apologies for the bad lead.

Let's review schemas after #1031 has resolved, as that PR is renaming and cleaning up some of the schemas we are discussing here and makes it hard to reason about where overlap exists.

@joshuagl joshuagl changed the title Remove FILEDICT_SCHEMA and use only TARGETINFO_SCHEMA instead Review schemas for possible consolidation and clean-up Jun 5, 2020
@joshuagl joshuagl added this to the Refactor milestone Jul 7, 2020
@joshuagl joshuagl removed this from the Refactor milestone Sep 8, 2020
@joshuagl joshuagl removed the refactor label Sep 10, 2020
@jku
Copy link
Member

jku commented Feb 16, 2022

Closing this issue as it was filed against (what is now known as) the legacy codebase: issue seems to not be relevant anymore. Please re-open or file a new issue if you feel that the issue is revelant to current python-tuf.

The current parsing/validation is likely not perfect but it is far easier to reason about.

More details

Current source code (and upcoming 1.0 release) only contains the modern components

  • a low-level Metadata API (tuf.api) and
  • tuf.ngclient that implements the client workflow,

Legacy components (e.g. tuf.client, tuf.repository_tool, tuf.repository_lib as well as the repo and client scripts) are no longer included. See announcement and API reference for more details.

@jku jku closed this as completed Feb 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants